Does anyone on here who believes in "over unity" devices...

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I personally have achieved over unity during testing stages of an on going project, but in order to sustain perpetual movement i need to create a special spring with the right curvature and tension, so thats where i'm at momentarily is working the spring to the correct alignment, although i had planned for the device to never use electricity, i believe i might have to use an electromagnet as a release so the devise will have a timing tension like a cam.

we'll see , it might not be required?

whats cool about this design is it has no sound and no braking affects caused by magnetic friction, and it doesn't defy any of the laws of physics, it harmoniously enjoys the laws


The key is to pull, not push
edit on 12-8-2011 by anumohi because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. We cannot know for certain unless we test.

Well now we're getting somewhere... Almost feels like you're opening up to the possibility of discussion. Until now I thought your conviction was so strong, you simply knew these devices work.

Maybe you can not know for certain, but many people can use their knowledge and experience, together with some logic (and maybe pattern recognition), to form a strong educated opinion, so to speak. One with a very high degree of probability. (I already explained some of what it can be based on, there's more, but i don't want to write a book here.)

For example, i don't have to look at these inventors fine print, to conclude with almost a 100% certainty, that they don't give any kind of money back guarantee. Am i wrong?


Originally posted by cupocoffee
It is all of you who jump to conclusions and assume it doesn't work - without doing any testing.
Now is that proper Scientific Method, to start by assuming it doesn't work, and then refuse to test it? I don't know....

If i told you i invented a means of self propelled human flight, and it involved gluing cardboard wings to your arms, and sticking a firecracker up your #$$, and the kit only cost $4000, no refunds, would you buy it? Would you say 'we can not know for sure one way or another unless we try it'? Or would you say 'that's stupid for reasons obvious to everyone'?

Problem is, with free energy devices, the reasons why they don't work aren't necessarily that obvious to everyone. I'd say they are probably even intentionally obscured, by making the device just a bit more complicated. But there are always people who know and understand more. I know that doesn't help you here, but therein lies the reason not everyone is as convinced as you. And this reason is not related with refusal to believe or ignorance...


I'm all for proper scientific method. What i'm not for, is supporting hoaxers, financially or otherwise.

But like i said earlier - put your money where your mouth is. Buy a kit. I guarantee you, you can find someone, who will put it together for you, maybe even for free.
If no one else would, i'd offer to do it myself. But like i also said earlier - do not blame the builder, if it doesn't work.


And while we're at the subject of refusal, i would like to remind you, that it's the inventors themselves, who are refusing to offer any proof their devices are working. Something, that should be part of their job!


Originally posted by cupocoffee
What evidence? RogerT's posts?
RogerT did not buy one of the kits - he built a SchoolGirl Motor. Totally different unit than the 10-coil kit.

I see.. Before i shortened my last post, i wanted to ask you, if you're talking about a specific device, or the devices in general..

Well, this opens up a whole new line of questions. But i'll try to limit them to these:
- Is this the first device the inventor is selling? No? Well, did his previous devices which he sold fulfill their promises? If not, what is the reason we should believe this one will? Especially if the inventor is not willing to prove it in any way?
- What then is the reason anyone should put down $4000 of their own money to do something the inventor should himself - prove that it works? With a $4000 price tag, there must be a reason, i would hope...


I was referring to RogerT's attempt, when i said "in this thread", yes, but he's not the only one. He put a valiant effort into it, but unless i'm mistaken, it is not doing, what it's supposed to... From what i saw, the only results were some confusing readings, which may or may not indicate something in some peoples opinions, but i fear an experienced electronics engineer could explain the readings, if they had direct access to the device and a good scope.


Originally posted by cupocoffee
The SchoolGirl Motor does not output enough power to power a house - nor did they ever claim that it does.
I bet you the 10-coil unit does output enough power though....

I never asked for something that can power a house. All i was asking for, is something that produces more power than it uses - so called over-unity. Doesn't even need to have 800% efficiency - i'd be happy with ANYTHING over 100%.

Show me something, that can power itself plus an LED, and i'll be all over it! I would immediately want to try and find ways to make it more powerful, or somehow scale it, and even if i couldn't, i would still have a thousand and one uses for it! I get excited just thinking about it! If only we had a basic proof of concept, even if it could only just power itself at the start, i guarantee you, it would open the floodgates and people would find ways to improve on it.

I don't care how many coils it has, or how much power it produces, as long as it's over 100%. Are you saying the SchoolGirl motor can do that?
If it doesn't, why should we expect anything different from the 10 coil unit? (It's a question, not a statement) Is it ten times as good? Isn't ten times zero still zero? I mean, there has to be a reason, before i or anyone else puts down $4000... Right?


You said you bet it can power a house... You willing to bet, say $4000?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolhanddan
reply to post by cupocoffee
 




James,

can you explain this quote


On May 26, 2011, Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrated a simple solid state circuit he has been working on that produces more than eight times more energy out than is electrically put in, implying that energy is being harvested freely from the environment somehow. He shows the results he has gotten both from his oscilloscope as well as a high-end Techtronics oscilloscope he used at Brigham Young University where he served as a Professor.


if he uses the word energy and not the word power, would this change your line of thinking below?



That's incredibly easy to explain. His words are chosen very carefully. A device produces 8x more energy out than electricity put it.

He doesn't say what other energy source is put in. I suspect a small gas engine or maybe this;






One more thing; It isn't specified what type of energy is output! Something tels me the output wasn't measured in Watts lol
edit on 12-8-2011 by EdSurly because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee
And while we're at the subject of refusal, i would like to remind you, that it's the inventors themselves, who are refusing to offer any proof their devices are working. Something, that should be part of their job!


Refusing to offer proof?

What do you call the two books where they disclose the circuits and schematics, the "Energy from the Vacuum" video series, the open-source kits?

What more can they be reasonably expected to do to prove it, beyond the books, videos and kits?




- What then is the reason anyone should put down $4000 of their own money to do something the inventor should himself - prove that it works? With a $4000 price tag, there must be a reason, i would hope...


The reason is, if you do the research, Bedini has the best reputation of anyone in alt energy. He has patents, he has books, he has videos, he has an open-source kit. He has his Yahoo group where he has people replicating his work.

Show me anyone else that offers an open-source kit ready to go with all the necessary parts and instructions?

No one else is even offering an open-source kit yet besides Bedini and Friedrich - therefore, this kit is the correct choice, by default.

Now, if anyone else has a better plan that they can put on the table, I'd be glad to hear it! But, if not - then going with the Bedini kit is the correct plan.




I never asked for something that can power a house. All i was asking for, is something that produces more power than it uses - so called over-unity. Doesn't even need to have 800% efficiency - i'd be happy with ANYTHING over 100%.

Show me something, that can power itself plus an LED, and i'll be all over it! I would immediately want to try and find ways to make it more powerful, or somehow scale it, and even if i couldn't, i would still have a thousand and one uses for it! I get excited just thinking about it! If only we had a basic proof of concept, even if it could only just power itself at the start, i guarantee you, it would open the floodgates and people would find ways to improve on it.


Okay, how about the Prof. Steven Jones modified Joule Thief circuit then? It's open-source too and the experiment would barely cost anything to try....




You said you bet it can power a house... You willing to bet, say $4000?


I am willing to throw down the $4000 for the unit, but I don't have any engineers, equipment, nor a lab to test in.

If someone like you or RogerT can handle all that, you just might have a deal.

Oh also, I would want my own witnesses and camera crew present during the testing too. You would have to be willing to allow other engineers to double-check and triple-check your work; everything would have to be 100% transparent so there's no chance of trickery.

Still game?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by RogerT
 

What are you powering with your over-unity device? A 1 word answer will suffice.


Nothing.
The SSG is designed to be an experiment to demonstrate the phenomenon of radiant energy, not a power source.
Wow, you really don't like doing your own work do you?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


When you're ready, are you intending to open-source your tech?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

I was referring to RogerT's attempt, when i said "in this thread", yes, but he's not the only one. He put a valiant effort into it, but unless i'm mistaken, it is not doing, what it's supposed to... From what i saw, the only results were some confusing readings, which may or may not indicate something in some peoples opinions, but i fear an experienced electronics engineer could explain the readings, if they had direct access to the device and a good scope.



Dude your arrogance is quite admirable

Why don't you join the other side and put it to good use in a creative context


The SSG did EXACTLY what it was supposed to.
Just because you find the readings confusing, doesn't mean they are.
The COP of >1 is clearly visible for anyone to see (who is able to see).
Several experienced electronic engineers commented on the thread, not one of them had a viable explanation that held water. In fact even a noob like me could debunk the pro's assertions within a 5 minute learning curve on google.

I think I understand your point: if FE tech is out there, how come no-one seems to have a working machine powering their house? Must be because FE's not real! It's a very good point/opinion and one I share with equal if not far greater passion than you.

I am beginning to understand now that FE tech is probably not going to come about via conventional engineering, and there is in fact a 'consciousness' aspect to it - sorry that will be disappointing for many if it is indeed true.

I believe that is why some tech works for the inventor but not for the replicators. It isn't a con, it's a factor of dimensional attunement which does sound like a con I admit.

If you are willing to be open minded, which you seem to champion, I really suggest you do some research on Ralph Ring and his experiences with Otis T Carr and the X1 program.

You can start with this excellent audio interview: bluestarenterprise.com...

I can tell you from personal experience that Ralph is for real IMO, he isn't a liar or a con-artist, he's not asking for money or seeking investors, he's way past caring about personal reward, fame, money or aggrandizement. He's just a guy who's seen it with his own eyes, lived it, been there, done it, got the T-shirt, and he wants the world to have the tech.

However, what you're about to hear in that interview will stretch credibility past the limits of most people's tolerance, maybe yours too.

Have fun.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
What more can they be reasonably expected to do to prove it, beyond the books, videos and kits?


Show a working version that has been properly tested.... which they are unable too do!



Bedini has the best reputation of anyone in alt energy.


However, that is like saying a prisoner has the best reputation in a jail.... However in the real world Bedini is a con man!


He has patents, he has books, he has videos, he has an open-source kit. He has his Yahoo group where he has people replicating his work.


So he has everything but a actual working machine....


No one else is even offering an open-source kit yet besides Bedini and Friedrich - therefore, this kit is the correct choice, by default.


except it is not overunity...


Now, if anyone else has a better plan that they can put on the table, I'd be glad to hear it! But, if not - then going with the Bedini kit is the correct plan.


yet it is not overunity...


Okay, how about the Prof. Steven Jones modified Joule Thief circuit then? It's open-source too and the experiment would barely cost anything to try....


yet it is not overunity...



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


Respect.


You should start a thread titled:

If I buy this $4000 Free Energy kit, is there anyone on ATS willing to build it and test it?

I think you will get one or two takers. there are some very good technical souls on here who are also practically competent and also potless. If the money aspect were handled, they'd probably be in.

Personally I don't have a lab. I'm not an electronic engineer or any other kind of qualified professional in the field.

I did the SSG experiment in my basement because I am genuinely interested in FE tech and got tired of sitting around in ATS threads having armchair warriors promote and debunk stuff they had no experience of. I bought a few components and a soldering iron and followed a pdf file and a discussion group - no biggie!

Opinions and conceptual knowlege is worthless IMO, only personal experience counts. Go for it. I'll follow the thread for sure, even though I quit ATS a long time ago


PS. I personally felt Bedini tech wasn't the way to go and still don't. Crystals, consciousness and vortex tech is now my gut feel on where to put my attention.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Refusing to offer proof?
What do you call the two books where they disclose the circuits and schematics, the "Energy from the Vacuum" video series, the open-source kits?
What more can they be reasonably expected to do to prove it, beyond the books, videos and kits?

Books and videos are not proof that he can make free energy devices. They are only proof that he can make books and videos. You can't call that proof, it's not even proper evidence.

Proof would be, if they invited respectable engineers to check the workings of the devices - to check that they really do what they are supposed to do. That's what the inventor should be expected to do to prove his claims.

An "over-unity" device would have to at least power itself, with no other external power sources. If it could power something else on top, it would be even better, but not really necessary. Verification of these claims by independent engineers and scientists would be pretty good evidence that it really works. Verification would be, if the independent scientists couldn't disprove that the devices really work as they should. Like if they checked them thoroughly and wouldn't find any hidden external power sources. Even better would be, if they could show it's possible to successfully replicate the results. That's how science works.

It's simple really - if i wrote a book about my time travels, would that book be proof, that i can really travel through time? Would that be enough for you to buy my time machine?


Originally posted by cupocoffee
The reason is, if you do the research, Bedini has the best reputation of anyone in alt energy. He has patents, he has books, he has videos, he has an open-source kit.

I know he is well known in this field. But if he offered scientists independent verification of his claims, he could be famous worldwide, as long as his devices work.

For me, a reason i would accept would be verification by others. They wouldn't even have to be scientists or engineers. I would accept a number (10+ and growing) of DIY hobbyists, that i don't know, posting about their success with making the device work (= making it power itself), showing videos, and descriptions of how they did it, as reason, if i saw a pattern of others trying and succeeding in replicating their results...
Alternatively, i would also accept the word of one hobbyist that i already knew, as reason. I would still ask them a bunch of questions first, but their word would be enough for me to start researching it in depth and trying it myself...

That would be reason enough for me, even if the inventor himself was for some reason refusing a direct verification of his claims. Without that, the only reason i would accept would be a chance of direct verification of his claims, period.


Originally posted by cupocoffee
He has his Yahoo group where he has people replicating his work.

And how many of them have succeeded in creating a functioning device, that can power itself, and possibly something else? How many have gone off the grid? (Again, a question, not a statement)

Also, didn't you claim, that nobody wants to try his latest device? Wasn't that your entire point behind multiple posts? That his devices do work, but nobody wants to try, that being the reason they are not more widely known?


Originally posted by cupocoffee
No one else is even offering an open-source kit yet besides Bedini and Friedrich - therefore, this kit is the correct choice, by default.

So being the only choice makes it the correct one automatically? Worth $4000 without any other required reasons, like for example wanting some evidence that it works? I'm afraid that doesn't justify the price for me.


Originally posted by cupocoffee


Show me something, that can power itself plus an LED, and i'll be all over it!

Okay, how about the Prof. Steven Jones modified Joule Thief circuit then? It's open-source too and the experiment would barely cost anything to try....

That's exactly what i had in mind when i was mentioning the LED, as well as the 800% efficiency.

A Joule Thief is indeed a very simple device to make, even a modified one. I could solder one together in 5-10 minutes, if i had the components on hand, and it's quite possible that i do (i'm only worried about the inductor specs)... If that circuit did what it's alleged to, it would be PERFECT to play with!

Problem is, did you not see that battery on the input of that circuit? Why is it there?
I was asking for a device that can power itself, and possibly something else. A device that puts out 8 times the power it uses, should be more than capable of powering itself, even if we had to put a transformer, some diodes and capacitors on the output, to reduce the voltage to that of a battery, and rectify it. After that, there is no reason why the output of the device should not be capable of powering another such device. And if it can do that, it could also power itself.

Can it do that, according to the claims of the inventor? If so, why does he only show the one with the battery? Why does he not mention the possibility of looping it, even once?

I mean, if i invented a device, that could put out 8 times the input power, i would immediately make it power itself, and take the battery out of the circuit. And when the camera man would come to interview me, i would show the device, and put all the attention on the fact, that there is no battery anywhere, nor are there any mysterious wires running from it, into my drawer, or a strange box for example. I would lift it up in the air, and turn it around, just to put the focus on that one point - no external power sources.

Now that would be some evidence, but still not proof, as people might say, that the video was modified on a computer, to erase the wires that go to the hidden power source. And that's why i would then invite them to look at it themselves in person, and convince themselves there really is no power source. In fact, i couldn't wait to show it to others!

Now, if i did that, i would immediately have hundreds or thousands of customers, just from the DIY/hobby scene alone. And after that, there would be no stopping the spread of the invention. Everyone would be talking about it, and everyone would want one, after they saw a hundred people posting about it working, showing what they made with it, and writing in depth tutorials about it.. And pretty soon, there would be people selling their own copies of it.

In fact, something very similar happened with a device i once made, even tho it was not even remotely as revolutionary as a free-energy device would be (so it didn't spread past the hobby scene)... It was just a bit different and improved compared to what people were used to, but that was enough. I wasn't even planning to make money with it, it just happened, practically overnight... And i saw this pattern again and again, with other people's work.

Why is that not happening with these devices, if they work?
Could it be, that no one dares claim their device can be looped (made to power itself), or when they do claim that, it doesn't?

The pattern i mentioned, is what i observed in various DIY hobbies, even tho the devices there were basically just "toys" - something people wanted to have or build for fun. But for some reason it is not happening, with devices that could change the shape of the world forever? How does that make sense?


I am willing to throw down the $4000 for the unit, but I don't have any engineers, equipment, nor a lab to test in. If someone like you or RogerT can handle all that, you just might have a deal.

Since RogerT is interested in trying it anyway, he would probably be your perfect partner for it.
He probably wants to make sure it works, before spending more money on these types of devices, so i think he would love the opportunity.

But if no one wanted to do it, like i said, i'd offer to do it, but i would have some conditions myself. I would want for all the required parts of the kit to be included and in their final form - like no cutting/sawing them into shape required. Just assembly as per instructions that would have to be included...

That is for two reasons:
- I have experience with electronics, but i'm not a machinist. However i can easily build something, as long as i have all the parts in their final shape, together with instructions. But i would not want to spend time and or money making the parts myself.
- I wouldn't want anyone to claim it doesn't work, because i didn't cut the parts to perfect shape. I have designed and built devices, where i had to cut the parts to the required shape myself, because it was impossible to do it any other way, but there my responsibility was only to myself, and if something went wrong, no one could blame me but myself.


Originally posted by cupocoffee
Oh also, I would want my own witnesses and camera crew present during the testing too. You would have to be willing to allow other engineers to double-check and triple-check your work; everything would have to be 100% transparent so there's no chance of trickery.

How come you wouldn't just take my word for it?!?
Just kidding.

Clearly you are aware of what verification means, and why it's important... Why do you not put the inventors to the same standards then? Obviously i would expect you to want to check the device yourself. I also thought you'd want me to send the finished device back to you, so you could play with it.

But there is a problem. I don't know where you live, but i'm pretty sure it's not to close to me. There would be shipping expenses, and almost certainly even import fees/taxes to cover. And those engineers and camera crew you'd want to send - they would probably need plane tickets and accommodations...

Also, what assurance would i have, that i would not be blamed if it didn't work? Some people might even go as far, as claiming that i intentionally suppressed the results. A verification by engineers, making sure that it's built exactly according to plans, would help, sure.

But if you can afford all that, you might be better off with just paying one of the mentioned engineers, to build it for you somewhere close to where you live...


And if you can't afford all the extra expenses, RogerT might be a better choice, as he does believe it could work, and even tried it in the past, spending his own time and money.

It's possible, that if you paid for the kit, he would welcome the opportunity to be able to try it, even if in the end he had to return it to you, simply because it would allow him to convince himself that it works, before spending another $4000 on it and making one for himself. If i were in his shoes, i know i would jump at the opportunity.

Something you should do before hand is create a written agreement about all the terms.


Instead, what i could do myself, without too much trouble, is build the modified joule thief circuit you mentioned. But it would only make sense, if it is claimed to be capable of powering itself, not just the LED... However if it actually creates 8 times as much power as it uses, that should be no problem whatsoever!
edit on 13/8/11 by deezee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Dear John_bmth- Boy are you a wet blanket. I do not think you are an american because Americans have always been able to dream and then put that dream into reality via the USPTO (pat.ofc) or found another way to make money off of that idea, I only have a Jr. College ed. I have well over 10 Patents to my name. I have made some pretty decent money back in the 70's & 80's. I have recently built a Hydrogen fuel cell based on the late stanley mayers design. I guess I paid attention to detail because it made an abundant amount of Gas the very first time I plugged it into my power supply and and after I received a pulse modulator from Cybernetics in England , it made even more gas. Not sure yet what I am going to power with it. The water where I live is extremely high in Iron so it is great for conducting between the stainless steel pipes I use per Mayers design. I also am looking at using a cheap compressor from Harbor Freight to turn it nto a Sterling engine type heat pump called a Slam Valve Compressor . You can run a Generator with Sun power, Or use Hydrogen power to provide the necessary heat. I found all of these item on the I-Net. some on You tube other on www.runyourcaronwater.com and other web-sites. I have studied via the Internet how Gravity Drive Powers a flying device. I believe I could build a Gravity control( Not Anti-Gravity) machine if I had the money. I have been studying the process over many years. I now understand how it works and hope to make enough money off my present invention to experiement with Controlled gravity devices. It is easy to do an experiement to prove that there is such a thing as Controlled gravity motors. If you can build yourself two dics of wood so that they can be charged with a small battery to to be made magnetic, wrap each disk in copper wire, design it so that so one side of the disk is Neg and the other disk identical. Then put a wooden dowl down the center to keep the two dics seperated with the Pos+ facing the Pos + and turn it on and drop it off of a tall building and measure the time it takes to hit the ground, now do the same thing but do not turn the device on. You will be amazed at the results.

Stop being so pessimistic and use you god given sense. KMG



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
isn't a voip phone with wifi the same thing as having free mobile phone service?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kissmygrits
 


The scope of my OP is very clearly defined: have you achieved over unity, if so, what appliances are you powering perpeptually? And FYI, voice over IP is not over unity. It's not even anything to do with over unity claims.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
Show a working version that has been properly tested.... which they are unable too do!


You don't get it.

That's what their Yahoo group is for. They get people to test and replicate their designs.

Friedrich is the one that's in charge of all that.

He explicitly states in the video that he's had the design replicated by several other people.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Hi RogerT,


Originally posted by RogerT
You should start a thread titled:

If I buy this $4000 Free Energy kit, is there anyone on ATS willing to build it and test it?


Well, why not just keep discussing it in this thread? Since the subject came up anyway




I think you will get one or two takers. there are some very good technical souls on here who are also practically competent and also potless. If the money aspect were handled, they'd probably be in.

Personally I don't have a lab. I'm not an electronic engineer or any other kind of qualified professional in the field.


Right. Enthusiasm, we have plenty of.

But we lack qualified engineers, a lab, all that important stuff. : (




PS. I personally felt Bedini tech wasn't the way to go and still don't. Crystals, consciousness and vortex tech is now my gut feel on where to put my attention.


Never heard of vortex tech. What can it do? Where do we buy it? Can it power a house?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Instead, what i could do myself, without too much trouble, is build the modified joule thief circuit you mentioned. But it would only make sense, if it is claimed to be capable of powering itself, not just the LED... However if it actually creates 8 times as much power as it uses, that should be no problem whatsoever!


Good idea, deezee.

You wanted more evidence to justify getting the $4000 kit, so Prof Jones' experiment would be a good place to start. I'd be very interested in the results of such an experiment.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee


He explicitly states in the video that he's had the design replicated by several other people.

 


Well since he explicitly stated that other people have done so, we surely must believe him now. Off to the Free Energy Mobile! I will travel the nation and let everyone know, all the while sucking energy out of the energy-doe-sphere.




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If you are interested in this topic visit the Energetic Forum.

There's some old retired people working on things that have been a shocker.

They are now keeping things under raps but look at the Joule Thief simple circuit they made.

They made Nathan Stubblefield "Earth Batteries"...and can run a little pulse motor indefinitely with excess power coming off to run LED's or CFL bulbs.


Nathan Stubblefield was an amazing American inventor who created a simple battery you burry in the ground, the "Earth Battery"...it ran the telegraphs across America years ago. He died poor and hungry....but his invention is coming back to the world.

The Joule Thief circuit those boys created will revolutionize lighting this planet....with barely any power.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Nathan Stubblefield was an amazing American inventor who created a simple battery you burry in the ground, the "Earth Battery"...it ran the telegraphs across America years ago. He died poor and hungry....but his invention is coming back to the world.
Ask the people living near Fukushima or Chernobyl what they think of radioactivity as a power source:

keelytech.com...

The discovery that there was radioactivity involved in Stubblefield's earth batteries puts an entirely different complexion on the matter....

I have to go back to my earlier post, I have just remembered something which might be of importance here. When talking about Stubblefield contaminating the earth I quoted:

o o It wasn't until 1906 when their son Tesla died teething on a potato from one of the RF antenna "hotspots," -- that they realized that it could have been the RF antenna "hotspots," mixtures of Pitchblende, salt crystals and other active metals that created the healthy looking but tainted vegetable gardens.

I missed it on the first reading through but then I remembered what Pitchblende is. It is an old fashioned German term for a mineral that is now known as Uraninite.

IT IS RADIOACTIVE !
Actually it sounds like the radioactivity probably killed their son Tesla. Of course the source is Keelytech so I don't know if it's that reliable.


The Joule Thief circuit those boys created will revolutionize lighting this planet....with barely any power.
The joule thief circuit adds losses that don't exist without it, it's actually inefficient. You'll use less energy without it.


Originally posted by boncho
Well since he explicitly stated that other people have done so, we surely must believe him now. Off to the Free Energy Mobile! I will travel the nation and let everyone know, all the while sucking energy out of the energy-doe-sphere.
Yeah, when it was only implicit, I thought it was dubious, but since he's been so explicit now, let's put our doubts to rest!



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The joule thief circuit adds losses that don't exist without it, it's actually inefficient. You'll use less energy without it.


How would you know that? If you've never made one?





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join