It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Revision of Tesla Crop Glyph Free Energy Device, schematic.

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kalki11
 


I wish you all the success with diligence.
Apart from external dangers, from 3rd parties, do be careful with the standing longi waves,
which can be highly destructive.


edit on 10-11-2011 by Angelic Resurrection because: typo




posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kalki11
 


OK, but it doesn't sound like a few book sales are going to fund your project.

I understood from your previous posts that you were 'almost there' and $300 was stopping you completing or at least moving the project significantly forward. Your reply indicates I'm way off mark with my assumptions


How about a few ball park figures:

In order to create a working FE generator I would need $x and y days/weeks/months

I know this is a best guess scenario, but at least it would provide a rough framework of expectation for anyone interested in partnering with you.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Wow ... I find it amazing that the OP gets an offer of help from a fellow ATS'er and all he can say is Buy my book....

Hopefully the OP will catch on to the hint given and do something to get his technology off the ground!

I truly want to see one of these technologies succeed!



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Yes, sadly, it's been the same story countless times over my 4 years here on ATS.

Not saying the OP fits in any of these categories, but my experience of ATS FE posters are:

1. Armchair critic: won't lift a practical finger but happy to bash everyone else's efforts and claim the moral and intellectual high ground. Usually these guys are conventional to the core and thoroughly stuck in the box when it comes to anything they perceive as the domain of 'science'
2. Wanna-be inventor: claim they are going to do something, but actually never get off the keyboard!
3. Broke garage tinkerer: these guys do stuff, sometimes very cool, but they never seem to have the money or time to get anything working. Still, one day pretty soon now, they're gonna crack it and the patent will make them an overnight trillionaire
4. Delusional inventor: they've actually put the work in, have created something, but it doesn't quite work as they claim, even though they can't see that. Usually, they hide behind secrecy or they are waiting for patent approval before they'll share the details
5. FE cheer-leader: nothing of real substance to add, confused about most of the tech, no real distinctions in terminology, like to post lots of links to FE sites without actually reading or understanding the linked pages etc. Well intentioned but no significant contribution.
6. Open source, serious, motivated, funded inventor/tinkerer, more than happy to share their ideas and partner with like minded souls - oops no, haven't come across any of those on ATS to date


This is probably my final post on ATS but I will drop in occasionally to check U2U if someone out there feels they are closer to cat. 6 than the rest and are interested in some help and support in getting their idea out to the world and doing some serious good for humanity.

Ciao for now
edit on 14/11/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kalki11
I believe that the co-axial electret will allow for an EM scroll wave (a continuous phase transition from aetheric to electronic via electrostatic field) and autoelectronic emissions will continuously rectify.


a) what is this belief based on?
b) phase transition of what?
c) why is the "load" shorted on your diagram?



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
The reason I don't want help (as in one person giving me a bunch of $) is because I don't want to be accused of being a charlatan if I can't Tesla the thing, it may require an Edisonian approach to the unknowns. Money is less of an issue as finding the right partners and work space.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Scroll waves occur in any active material and in the heart they precipitate electrical activity, an electret was hooked up to a speaker and it gave off a cyclical sound.

Phase transition from quantum to classical

That is a mistake, there should be a resistor before the bipolar spark gap.
edit on 21-11-2011 by Kalki11 because: forgot c



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


I fall under the rarest of FE guys, the "Free Energy Messiah" - and because I know that sounds insane I must be diligent and honest in my communications.

I also never had the means to prototype so it's all a thought experiment based on years of study (for example I decided to stop research on devices with moving parts because of inherent yet negligible entropy).

I don't s**t on others, I scour their work for any insights I may apply to my "ultimate" device, the one that somehow mimics creation itself - this is consistent, the concept of auto-electronic emissions, with all matter emerging from hyperspace/aether in a continual omnibang.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kalki11
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Scroll waves occur in any active material and in the heart they precipitate electrical activity, an electret was hooked up to a speaker and it gave off a cyclical sound.


How does an electret generate any signal?


Phase transition from quantum to classical


This sentence does not make sense. If you are using a well-established term, you must use it appropriately. If you are describing something new, please come up with a new term.

There are classical models in physics and there are quantum models in physics, with different realms of applicability. There can be no phase transition between the two, it's like saying that an ancient Greek poem experienced phase transition into "Full Metal Jacket". And gave off a spark in the process.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kalki11

I don't s**t on others, I scour their work for any insights I may apply to my "ultimate" device, the one that somehow mimics creation itself - this is consistent, the concept of auto-electronic emissions, with all matter emerging from hyperspace/aether in a continual omnibang.


A noble thought. But how you gonna handle the high impedance
between the earth and the aether sink.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Wow, according to this I'm right:

Mathew Whitney
www.sciencedaily.com...

As I said, rectification of auto-electronic emissions from the vacuum is possible with my invention, this is experimental proof of my claim: "Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy."



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


This is not using an earth ground, if that's what you mean.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kalki11
 


No what I mean is that, The Aether sink and the earth is a capacitor in itself.
In my own expt I was able to get about 600 - 700 milliamps from the vacuum.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kalki11
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Wow, according to this I'm right:

Mathew Whitney
www.sciencedaily.com...


This has nothing to do with your claims. It's a fact that you can knock out particles out of vacuum, and it's commonplace. It doesn't mean that you can go and tap vacuum energy using a piece of electret jsut sitting there.


As I said, rectification of auto-electronic emissions from the vacuum is possible with my invention, this is experimental proof of my claim: "Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy."


Read carefully. As I already said in this post, yes it's trivial to create particles from vacuum. But it does take energy. You, on the other hand, claim to extract energy out of nothing.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Kalki11
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Wow, according to this I'm right:

Mathew Whitney
www.sciencedaily.com...


This has nothing to do with your claims. It's a fact that you can knock out particles out of vacuum, and it's commonplace. It doesn't mean that you can go and tap vacuum energy using a piece of electret jsut sitting there.


As I said, rectification of auto-electronic emissions from the vacuum is possible with my invention, this is experimental proof of my claim: "Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy."


Read carefully. As I already said in this post, yes it's trivial to create particles from vacuum. But it does take energy. You, on the other hand, claim to extract energy out of nothing.


It is a big deal guy, converting energy into matter is a big deal. The aether sink is not just an electret, and the aether sink is just one part of the invention. This cosmological finding also relates:

dsc.discovery.com...

But that is because I see how a naturally occurring Dynamic Casimir Force (having to do with Branefall) TOTALLY EXPLAINS the "mystery" of Dark Energy/ZPE - they are synonymous but Dark Energy is regarded in cosmological terms and ZPE in microscopic. This is the continuous omnibang.

What I'm claiming is that by passing a dc current (or pulsed dc) through the population inversion of a noble gas, where the semi-exhausted container is the negatively charged cavity of an electet...the current will pick up energy from ZPE.

Wanna discuss Negative Resistance or did you already debunk Bearden's page on Kron?
edit on 2-12-2011 by Kalki11 because: speling



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Good news, I have reached the conclusion that the aether sink is unnecessary because the negative resistance effectively "sinks" or implodes the Heaviside component into the Poynting component. A simpler circuit design, similar to the above rectenna circuit has been designed for negative resistance and self-oscillation. Also a man contacted me at work and is going to assist the prototyping, he's involved in the alt. energy scene here in Ithaca.



new topics




 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join