It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# For those interested in Free Energy, does Otis T. Carr's Free Energy Principle comply with Physics?

page: 5
6
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:33 PM

I have no idea how 1 and 1 can equal three when summed. It makes no sense, sorry.

In a general response to some things here, understand something very simple:
A video of something is not proof that it is true. It's easy to fake it, or misinterpret it, and so on. Scientific method and duplicability, please.

Now to be a little picky.

Originally posted by noconsequence
I assume you are aware that what we call the North pole is actually the magnetic south pole. Strange that they would do that; however if you remember who has been running the show you might put what I'm giving you here together..

It's not strange at all. It's the called the north pole because the north end of a magnet points toward it. Haven't you ever used a compass?

Originally posted by noconsequence
First the way north field feeds the mass of the planet while south field is pulled up out of it's mass like a waste field.

...

Remember first of all the fact that field is not only passing through matter, North field is feeding into it drawing south out of it as well.

Uh...huh? North and south, and the conventions we used with field direction, are merely conventions. They don't have any physical meaning like the one you just invented. It's meaningless.

Originally posted by noconsequence
This also clarifies the reason water spins two different directions draining on one side of the equator. The water is, "falling" into the thrown field.

This is false. A really silly urban myth. Normally this is blamed on the Coriolis effect, which is due to the rotation of the earth and the fact that your frame of reference is rotating with it, but is actually completely meaningless. Water doesn't spin in two different directions, the spin of water falling down a drain is much, much, much more powerfully influenced by any kind of slope or imperfection or movement in the water or its container. Pseudoscience and urban legend.

See www.snopes.com... for information. This is an excerpt from an excerpt on the page.

Q: I've been told that water goes down a sink in one direction in the Northern Hemisphere and in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere. Is that true?

A: No! The origin of this myth comes from applying a scientific principle to a situation where it does not fit. The Coriolis deflection causes cyclonic systems to rotate counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. It was inevitable that someone would suggest (without checking) that a sink should drain in a similar manner.

If you want something to float due to electromagnetic forces, your best bet is to look into magnetic levitation.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Johnmike]

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:47 PM

Hi No Consequence,

Your North Pole and South Pole stuff may be a little beyond what we personally are aware of, why don't you explain that in a little bit more of detail if you would. We always grew up thinking the North Pole is North and the South Pole is South. But... I'd like to hear your explanation in more detail to figure out what you are trying to tell us.

From what I can see that you are trying to tell and show us, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are trying to tell us that even though our magnets in our compasses point us to the North Pole up north, once we reach there South Pole magnets coming up through the center of the Earth are zooming out into space from down below us if we were standing on the magnetic North Pole. Since these South magnets are zooming out of the Earth into space, you are saying that makes it actually the South Pole, because surrounding it the North Pole magnets are heading south; am I correct? Because I can understand it being that way scientifically.

I understand what you are saying about the fields also, its just too bad that some of the files that you let us see didn't actually have the different colored arrows labeled so that we could see which are the South Pole magnets, and which are the North Pole magnets and their respective flows; but I figured them out after comparing them.

I understand about what you are saying about water spinning in different directions down the drains in the different hemispheres, and why the hurricanes spin in different directions in the different hemispheres.

John Mike has that all messed up again, and he is confusing people. This article will set people straight hopefully.

en.wikipedia.org...

In perspective to get John Mikes misrepresentation of the Coriolis Effect straightened up; water does spin/drain in opposite directions in the different hemisphere's.

Quote from Wiki:

Perhaps the most commonly encountered rotating reference frame is the Earth. Moving objects on the surface of the Earth experience a Coriolis force, and appear to veer to the right in the northern hemisphere, and to the left in the southern. Movements of air in the atmosphere and water in the ocean are notable examples of this behavior: rather than flowing directly from areas of high pressure to low pressure, as they would on a non-rotating planet, winds and currents tend to flow to the right of this direction north of the equator, and to the left of this direction south of the equator. This effect is responsible for the rotation of large cyclones (see Coriolis effects in meteorology).

UnQuote from Wiki:

I hope John Mike understands what wiki is saying when wiki says: "winds and currents tend to flow to the right of this direction north of the equator, and to the left of this direction south of the equator." This hopefully will simplify his mistakes and he can see the truth.

Here is Victor Schauberger's Austrian Patents which are the basics to the UFO's or VRIL that he designed for the Germans and the Americans.

The following is an excellent video about Otis Carr with Ralph Ring, and you can see more of the innards of the craft and the patents.

Thanks for helping No Consequence.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:29 PM
I believe I am staying relivant with the post in that it is important to understand what makes these things to function naturally.

This universe is nothing more than, "field reaction".. The way field moving in different states is inter-reacting with fields of different states.

While we are on the subject of field movement, I would like to share a hieroglyph which coordinates my claim about the direction of the north and south field flows:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

The crown of the queen of the north, "funnels down to the head, [its' direction of movement], while the crown of the queen of the south steps up in mass as it approaches the head , [its' direction of movement].

This is the reason that the swirl in Egyptian hieroglyphs represents a year/span of time; because time, matter, and light are one in the same.. The movement of our universe is the swirl.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

All I am saying here is that the crowns of the queen of the north and the queen of the south demonstrate that my conclusion for the results of a simple experiment to determine the direction of field movement, is backed up by the knowledge instilled within the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Ok, again.

You can believe me or not. I am able to read hieroglyphs, "technologically" better than professional translators. I am only sharing and not competing..

Thank you.

Noconsequence.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by noconsequence]

[edit on 12-6-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:50 PM

Hi No Consequence,

You need to start making videos on this stuff, and using the photos to point at as you are talking in order to explain it more so that we can understand it more. I understand what you are saying, but when I look at the file, the file is not very detailed and I think you are loosing a lot of us, by us not fully comprehending what you are saying.

I wish we could make some YouTube videos together, because I could question you while you are making your statements, and you could question me while I'm making my statements.

Our knowledge of where we both are in our respective sciences is beyond the grasp of others usually and we forget to break things down so that others can fully understand all that we are saying. You know what I mean, we are sure you know what you are talking about, but some of it is sailing right over our heads because we really can't see what you are trying to point out, like in the file.

But... you are doing good my friend in trying to relate ancient Egyptian knowledge to current knowledge of the North and South fields. There is more that you are going to say on this subject but you haven't said it yet, so go ahead and say it, or you will mess up the future so to speak, because I already saw it in my dreams, the problem is I forgot what it was that you were telling us, but it was extremely important and you pointed it out in a way that was very understandable.

How do you like that weird bit of information? Sometimes I dream of stuff that can take place in the future, and I can let it take place by helping it along, or I can let it be dismissed. But, I'm telling you right here and now there is more that you are to relate to us on this, and in a more detailed fashion.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 05:40 PM
I tried to answer as best as I could as my understanding applies to Mr adrenochromes' post. Specify if you could the things I might address in order to give a more complete example.

All I can say is that I will try to answer.

Thank you.

Noconsequence.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:29 PM

1) Stop trying to provoke me [SNIP]

2) The Coriolis effect does not effect the way water spins when it drains; it just isn't powerful enough.
It does influence larger-scale patterns, particularly weather, though. But not anything on that scale.

3) That's not really how magnetic field lines work. If you don't know, that's (field lines) what you're referring to. It isn't anything really shooting into or out of the earth, per se. The lines we draw around magnets go from north to south, and within the magnet itself it goes from south to north. The lines are perpendicular to the equipotential lines (lines around the magnet where your magnetic potential, and the force you feel from the magnet, is equal). The field lines trace the path a positive particle would take starting from a given point.

Mod Edit: Removed off-topic insult.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Gemwolf]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Johnmike

I have no idea how 1 and 1 can equal three when summed. It makes no sense, sorry.

basically, synergy is sort of an abstract idea, and i'll try to explain it the best i can...

let's say you have an empty table, and you have 2 apples. put one apple on the table, then add another apple to the table. mathematics tells us you have 2 apples. however, instead of an empty table now, you now have a table with something on it. so you've got 2 apples plus the whole new situation of the apples being together on the table now, which equals 3 total.

confused?

hold a fist in front of you, now put out another fist. you've now got two fists out, but you've also got a whole new scenario presented before you, equaling three total things: (fist) + (fist) + (fists in front of you together) = 3

usually synergy is related to body chemistry or medicine... let's say you consume some alcohol, and you take a pill as well - not only are you going to feel the alcohol and the pill, but you're also now going to feel an entirely new effect from their combination... in other words, synergy messes with your head lol...

Synergy (from the Greek syn-ergos, συνεργός meaning working together) is the term used to describe a situation where different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome. Simply defined, it means that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. Although the whole will be greater than each individual part, this is not the concept of synergy. If used in a business application it means that teamwork will produce an overall better result than if each person was working toward the same goal individually.

en.wikipedia.org...

and my questions was, do you think that this applies to nature and the universe??

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:16 AM

That's just the word synergy. Synergy is basically things coming together and producing something, a word that was popularized by Buckminster Fuller. Nothing scientific.

What you're describing is just sets, really. Sort of like the cardinality (the number of elements) of a power set.

A power set of a set of two elements, say a set A with elements x and y, has a cardinality of 4. The set A has a cardinality of two, and membership I just defined, but the power set of A is every possible set within A. That would be the null set (nothing) [] , [x], [y], and [x,y]. If you take a set B with elements x, y, and z, it has a cardinality of 3 and a power set with a cardinality of 8. You have the null set again [], [x], [y], [z], [x,y], [x,z], [y,z], and [x,y,z]. So I guess that's a mathematical way of saying that when you have three things, you have eight possible sets of items you can use.

I guess it sort of applies to everything, just not in the metaphysical terms Carr used. But think about it...if you have a system where two things create something that is different from the sum of it's parts, you can have almost an infinite number of combinations if you have enough parts. I'm thinking specifically of chemicals and their molecular structure... Such as how two hydrogen and oxygen gas are very different from water...and then you can have molecules with thousands and thousands of atoms, and the addition of one can greatly change the behavior of the entire molecule.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM

right on - believe it or not, you did answer my question, just in an elaborate way!

i agree with you totally, and i believe nature is simple and perfect, yet still it's complex and and intricate...

there's so much left to be discovered with science, and it seems as if the possibilities are endless!!

...and would you two please bury the hatchet?
i mean, we're all just trying to discuss something fairly complicated and we all need all the help we can get!

"the war's out there, man! OUT THERE!!"

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:58 PM
Is free or alternative energy kept a "secret" from the public at large in general? I'm sure there is some sort of energy being "hidden" from us. The government continues to look for an alternate energy source, yet there are countless ones around. They just won't take action. It's sort of like DVD and Blu-Ray Disc. Supposedly in years time, Blu-Ray Disc will replace DVD, like DVD did to VHS. Take that in alternate energy terms. It's the same way, just in different words. People won't buy a Blu-Ray Disc Player, money-wise, even though not economy-wise. However, in terms of alternative energy, etc.; the economy and how the world would completely switch over to some sort of other energy is what the stink of it is.

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:47 AM

Just want to add my words : Don't be sure of anything : even in a system there is backdoors , there is always a way to get round any rules : i think scientist should understand the new science : systemics science.

But that is sure : an expert would never understand, and agree with me : in a determined field : he would think we can't. But there is no determined field : there is a no global system's set of rules but rules in their fields which compose the system (the reality) : you can get round the rules in between the fields (ie : quantum physic, and physic, water physics, gravitation, magnetism, electron).

If i demonstrate you tree way to create an infinite movment : what would you say ?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by psychederic]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by psychederic]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by psychederic]

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:30 PM

OK This is just a general response to the same thing I always see mentioned every time the words Free Energy comes up. There's no particular reason why I chose to respond to your post because I've done it on other posts/forums so don't think that I'm trying to flame you or anything but I'm tired of hearing so much repetition regarding the whole... "there is no such thing as free energy thing". I just wonder why anyone has to go on and debate the whole definition or lack thereof regarding what is free energy. Sure there is a cost to building something... you have to pay for your nuts and bolts at the store. But once we have a device in place... bought and paid for. It's continued use of producing power brings that price to a level that is infinitesimally small. Once this device has saved the equivalent cost of buying power and paid for itself in that savings... is it not essentially free. If I have to spend ten grand in order to never have to pay an electricity bill ever again...That's free enough for me so I really don't know why this debate rages on.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Gravitronic
If I have to spend ten grand in order to never have to pay an electricity bill ever again...That's free enough for me so I really don't know why this debate rages on.

The debate rages on because with some free energy ideas, like windmills and solar panels, you can invest some money and get your money back in energy savings as you suggest.

Other so-called "free energy" ideas that you can invest your money in, will never pay you back because they don't work, they are scams, like the idea in this thread (Otis T. Carr's Free Energy Principle).

And some people seem to have difficulty telling the real free energy ideas from the scams. Apparently the less understanding of physics someone has, the harder it is for them to tell the real ideas from the scams.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:55 PM

I do have to say that I was in the artillery when in the military... a ballistic round fired in the northern hemisphere actually goes to the right of the intended straight line target. Due to the rotation of the earth. A round must be fired to the left of target in order to compensate for the earth's rotation. It is the opposite below the equator. I can't say what the effect would be on water... but why would it be any different... with regard to ballistics... it's proven, even on smooth bore rounds that have no lands or grooves and thus no effective rotation of the round that can move it (like a curve ball) The same still holds true... in the north fire left of target... in the south fire right of target. You'll more than likely never see it in relation to small rounds but on a munition that travels twenty or more miles to target you might find that if you didn't compensate you'd be off target by a few miles.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Gravitronic

I do have to say that I was in the artillery when in the military... a ballistic round fired in the northern hemisphere actually goes to the right of the intended straight line target. Due to the rotation of the earth. A round must be fired to the left of target in order to compensate for the earth's rotation. It is the opposite below the equator. I can't say what the effect would be on water... but why would it be any different...

The strength of the Coriolis force depends on the velocity of the object. In the case of artillery, the rounds are moving very fast and over a large distance, greatly increasing the effect. But at slower speeds and smaller distance, such as with water, the effect is simply too weak to be noticeable.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Lethys]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Lethys

Originally posted by Gravitronic

I do have to say that I was in the artillery when in the military... a ballistic round fired in the northern hemisphere actually goes to the right of the intended straight line target. Due to the rotation of the earth. A round must be fired to the left of target in order to compensate for the earth's rotation. It is the opposite below the equator. I can't say what the effect would be on water... but why would it be any different...

The strength of the Coriolis force depends on the velocity of the object. In the case of artillery, the rounds are moving very fast and over a large distance, greatly increasing the effect. But at slower speeds and smaller distance, such as with water, the effect is simply too weak to be noticeable.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Lethys]

Ok so the Coriolis force is there and when you combine the effect of gravity pulling down, and as long as the body of water maintains a degree of surface tension whereby it wants to maintain itself as an unbroken mass of water, it will maintain that spiral until the surface tension is overcome by the gravitational forces and at that point it just completely breaks up and goes down the drain ...straight up ...er ...down

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Gravitronic]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Gravitronic]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Gravitronic]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:50 PM
I don't know about this guys principle. But I do know Free Energy is already a reality. It's all around us. You can never create free energy from nothing but you don't need to. We have so much free energy around us, it will never run out. You can tap into whats already there and or convert forms of free energy into usable energy.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Gravitronic

Originally posted by Lethys

Originally posted by Gravitronic

I do have to say that I was in the artillery when in the military... a ballistic round fired in the northern hemisphere actually goes to the right of the intended straight line target. Due to the rotation of the earth. A round must be fired to the left of target in order to compensate for the earth's rotation. It is the opposite below the equator. I can't say what the effect would be on water... but why would it be any different...

The strength of the Coriolis force depends on the velocity of the object. In the case of artillery, the rounds are moving very fast and over a large distance, greatly increasing the effect. But at slower speeds and smaller distance, such as with water, the effect is simply too weak to be noticeable.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Lethys]

This is in addition to my last... it wouldn't accept my changes when editing

... breaks up and goes down the drain ...straight up ...er ...down. Gravity here is the force giving the additional velocity you speak of. Mass/weight I'm sure is also a factor. The moment of inertia in a object's rotation (water) is a force based on the factor of Mass/weight for a point in an object's rotation. It is given as a point because often times an objects velocity is not consistent in the full rotation. I guess that is why they call it the "MOMENT" of inertia.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Gravitronic]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Gravitronic

Originally posted by Lethys

Originally posted by Gravitronic

I do have to say that I was in the artillery when in the military... a ballistic round fired in the northern hemisphere actually goes to the right of the intended straight line target. Due to the rotation of the earth. A round must be fired to the left of target in order to compensate for the earth's rotation. It is the opposite below the equator. I can't say what the effect would be on water... but why would it be any different...

The strength of the Coriolis force depends on the velocity of the object. In the case of artillery, the rounds are moving very fast and over a large distance, greatly increasing the effect. But at slower speeds and smaller distance, such as with water, the effect is simply too weak to be noticeable.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Lethys]

This is in addition to my last... it wouldn't accept my changes when editing

... breaks up and goes down the drain ...straight up ...er ...down. Gravity here is the force giving the additional velocity you speak of. Mass/weight I'm sure is also a factor. The moment of inertia in a object's rotation (water) is a force based on the factor of Mass/weight for a point in an object's rotation. It is given as a point because often times an objects velocity is not consistent in the full rotation. I guess that is why they call it the "MOMENT" of inertia.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Gravitronic]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:14 PM

Just a question... can I delete my own posts... When I edited that last one the changes didn't show. It said that I made changes but I couldn't see them. When I clicked on the edit button and made my changes there was no reply button it seemed like it was in a kind of loop the reply button was never there after I made changes. That's why I ended up with a duplicate post... Did I miss something...

Marc

top topics

6