German Scientist Posts Complete Vacuum-Energy Documentation!

reply to post by Matyas


Ironic that you think Willis' invention is a scam, but Turtur's could be the real deal, when they're both "free energy"

Anyway, let's try not to jump to conclusions before somebody's had a chance to actually test it out, OK?

reply to post by MajorDisaster


I never made a blanket statement about FE. It is in how it is done which makes the difference.

Now regarding the Turtur Device, I found this:

Instead of using a diamagnetic rotor, it might be discussed to build up a paramagnetic rotor,
for instance of platinum (   1.9 106 ) or aluminium (   2.5 104 ) (see [Ger 95]). The
forces will be attractive in this case so that the rotor spins with opposite direction than a
diamagnetic rotor (if it spins), but the absolute values of the torque should be of the same
order of magnitude as those of diamagnetic rotor.

P. 72 source

Glad to see somebody is paying attention!

reply to post by Matyas


Right, it's all in how its done. But as far as I know, Willis' technique is something quite new and different. Sending "pulses" to a magnets/coil and getting large bursts of energy back out.

I still don't really see the value in declaring that it's a scam, before any of us have had a chance to check it out

reply to post by Freezer


His reviews are less than flattering on overunity.com (understand understatement) not to mention his red flag methods of fundraising, it smells bad to me. But that is fine, I don't mind being challenged in the cause of truth, and Willis is welcome to challenge me.

reply to post by MajorDisaster


I have to go to work now, but I'll be back MD

I'll also have you know the idea is nothing new. I published a paper on the exact same idea in '91 Extraordinary Science Magazine, which I have been subsequently embarrassed of in later years. Unless you have a good theory, it really is bad science.

edit for date corection

[edit on 7/19/2009 by Matyas]

There is something i dont get with the equations used to illustrate this vacuum.

Nr.1
A energy cant cross over from negative to plus or the other way. And still be the same energy.

Illustration:

-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 ,3, 4

The vacuum in this case is 0. And the numbers are what represent whats relative to the vacuum 0. The space between a number out side the vacuum is also relative to N or the infinite. There is a gap of time between the 9 numbers.
For instance you cant say that -4 instantaneously will become -3 if it is applied a power of energy to change. -4 has to change X amount of times before it reaches -3.
It actually has to go through the vacuum to become -3. Each power or energy has to do that. If you measure each power of number with a oscilloscope.

Illustration:

-4 becomes 0 then -3.9999........

Nr.2
If you have a diagram with +,- X and +,- Y lines. That will get you a image of a infinite big cross .It will have no ends unless you put them in.
But it will have a crossing point where the two lines meet. And that is called the zero time of observation. But to be able to measure anything with a 2 dimensional scale you first have to find it on a 3 dimensional scale. That means you have to go out side the vacuum to locate it. Because there is nothing inside the dimension of 0. And there is nothing that exists with just 1 or 2 dimensions. No matter how small or fast the energy is.

So i dont know how they think they can pool anything out from a vacuum. Because there is nothing there. 0 is the changing point where energy becomes a different measurement of polarisation. From a finite force in time to a stronger or weaker force in a different time.

Edit:
Just to clarify. 0 on a X-Y scale is just the start time of observation of a specific matter or energy. 0 is not a vacuum.

A oscilloscope measures energy from 0 which is a set time of observation and its not a vacuum. It is just the beginning of a observation. Just like if you use a X-Y scale to plot the changes in a specific energy over time.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by Matyas
I'll also have you know the idea is nothing new. I published a paper on the exact same idea in '94 Extraordinary Science Magazine, which I have been subsequently embarrassed of in later years. Unless you have a good theory, it really is bad science.

Hmmm, well that seems like kind of an odd thing to do, to publish a paper in a scientific journal about a theory/technique that doesn't even work....... I would think you would have done some experimentation to see if it really works or not BEFORE you published the paper?

reply to post by spy66

A energy cant cross over from negative to plus or the other way. And still be the same energy.

Er, why not?

The existence of '0' is a purely mathematical/theoretical/subjective assignment of a base reference, from which we can measure other energy levels relative to this '0' level. Usable energy does not have an absolute positive or negative, but rather a positive or negative value relative to a reference level.

Example: If the reference level of temperature is placed at the freezing point of pure water under a pressure of 1 atmosphere, then we can speak of +25° or -25°. Both cases have a certain amount of energy inherent in them, and both cases contain the same type of energy (heat). One is simply 25° more than our reference and the other is 25° less than our reference level.

Example: Household wiring in the US is based on a two-phase alternating voltage source of approximately 220-240 volts with a frequency of 60 Hz. The voltage is measured relative to ground potential, which is the average electrical potential of the top layer of the earth in a certain area. At any one time, the electrical potential does not exceed one half of that 220-240 volts from this ground potential, but by placing a positive phase and a negative phase in conjunction, we can attain the rated voltage. Both +110V and -110V are electrical potentials, identical types of energy, but with the sole difference that the amount of energy is more or less than the arbitrary ground potential of 0 volts.

The '0' energy level spoken of in the paper is simply an arbitrary level based on observation of the average energy level over area.

For instance you cant say that -4 instantaneously will become -3 if it is applied a power of energy to change. -4 has to change X amount of times before it reaches -3.

Obviously. The pattern using integers is simply a simpler way to state that the potential is changing. It is physically impossible to plot every difference in energy level precisely; the paper would wipe out the rain forests with one table that would span an encyclopedia and give no more useful data that an integer-based pattern such as is shown.

If you have a diagram with +,- X and +,- Y lines. That will get you a image of a infinite big cross .It will have no ends unless you put them in.
But it will have a crossing point where the two lines meet. And that is called the zero time of observation. But to be able to measure anything with a 2 dimensional scale you first have to find it on a 3 dimensional scale. That means you have to go out side the vacuum to locate it. Because there is nothing inside the dimension of 0. And there is nothing that exists with just 1 or 2 dimensions. No matter how small or fast the energy is.

Again, the observations you make re the zero point are accurate, but they have no bearing on the feasibility of the theory. you are stating obvious facts that are not detailed because this is not a Physics 101 class. The zero point is the intersection of two arbitrary scales used to measure relative to that arbitrary zero point. As to nothing existing in less than three dimensions, that is not true: voltage levels exist in a single dimension, as they can be represented by a single numerical value. Location on a plane can be accurately represented by two dimensions, as the very fact it is specified to be on a plane sets the 'z' coordinate to null.

I suggest you re-read the paper again, with an eye to understanding rather than disproving. Once you understand the theory, it will be much easier to disprove.

TheRedneck

reply to post by MajorDisaster


Depends on the journal. It is not a peer reviewed paper, else if it were I probably wouldn't have done it. Also when it comes to theory, it is somewhat difficult to prove time travel for instance, or "FE" and "AG". We pushed to get the info out in the public domain at expense of consequences. Later in '94 I completed another paper but did not publish. The second paper was The Principle of Electrogravitics, the likes of which I have not seen anywhere else, and which theory still tightly holds water after 14 years.

There is a relationship of electrodynamic equations that form a 3D pattern you would not believe. I suspect the beginning of a unified theory is woven into them.

What I mean by 3D is a pattern where the variables and constants are multiplied in such a way that they form a spinning octahedron, a different equation sitting at each vertex. It is really quite incredible, and can serve as a unique method of memorization. I didn't come up with it, it was passed on to me, something like fire, with the exception this is more like starfire as it can describe the mechanics of electromagnetism very well.

The equations for The Principle of Electrogravitics are different in that they depart from the pattern for electrodynamics even though they use the same variables and constants. In the future I may complete a Principle of Magnetogravitics along the same lines of reasoning.

Now it is my understanding, before my recent discovery of I Catt's work and Forrest Bishop's, et al, that thermodynamics was the key player for "FE" by the transfer of heat into the system from the environment. It still holds true, but...the Turtur Device is demonstrating another form of conversion and I have doubts as to whether or not it is vacuum energy or dark energy since both of these are built on a very precarious foundations.

I am inclined to lean more towards I Catt's theory, named by him Theory C. It is based upon emperical evidence by observation of a charge appearing on a nearby conductor in the presence of an electromagnetic field, with the added bonus of attraction or repulsion depending upon the orientation of the charges.

Now Turter's work introduces the same concept which caught my eye, but somehow or other he slips us back into the fantasy land of dark matter and vacuum energy, which is almost as ridiculous as spooky action at a distance, necessitating the existence of an Aether as a medium.

But we know, even though the Aether is an attractive theory, it is still hard to prove to the point of impossible. The same goes for String Theory, and a host of symmetrical and attractive modern products from our infallible halls of academia. As a result I choose to stick with the old ways of a century ago, such as electrodynamics and thermodynamics, the classics, until someone comes along to shake my tree.

That, of course, has happened several times, and is happening now.

Keshe stop selling your scam. Butlincat2012 your real name is fraudster Kesh.

How could this get buried so deep?
Kudos Prof. Turtur, great work!

In case this went on unnoticed, Turturs device has been verified to work with overunity by the German TÜV and another indepenandt Institute whose Name i cant recall atm.
Youll find it all on his website...

Really interesting stuff.
Simply put, hes exploiting the(theoretically) limited propagation velocity of the magnetic field, using a rotor, to generate torque.
Hes making some assumptions, like the mentioned propagation velocity of the magnetic field(wich seem absolutely plausible), but thats fine with me, and as long as noone experimentally prooves him wrong, ill buy it.

/edit: "I think it is possible to utilize magnetism as an energy-source. But we science idiots cannot do that; this has to come from the outside."
-Werner Heisenberg, Nobel laureate

Guess he wasnt right at all... A science idiot did it, lol.