I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?

Originally posted by StayAlert1
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

 

LOL This use of water pressure was actually discovered in the 1500’s DUH…….. Test it yourself before you spout off. I have seen it in person. It works fine. You can also google it. This method was also used by early miners here is the U.S. by stepping pipe diameters down from large to small / water hose, for strip mining river banks.

LOL, duh, you can't make it work like a closed system that keeps running by itself, like that poster suggested.

Boyle's self-flowing flask, a perpetual motion machine, appears to fill itself through siphon action ("hydrostatic perpetual motion") and involves the "hydrostatic paradox"[17] This is not possible in reality; a siphon requires its "output" to be lower than the "input".

I was obviously not talking about siphon action being impossible, I'm quite aware of its existence.

Get a general grasp of the topic at hand before you spout off.

reply to post by StayAlert1


your understanding of it is wrong

it doesn't work

reply to post by mikepopy

I guess you are always that sweet to everybody, calling them morons and full of air? How sweet of you! I didnt say anything about death and I presume you didnt see my quotation marks. People should be more open minded, so lighten up my friend...for you!

No, people shouldn't be spreading BS.

I saw your quotation marks. I don't see how they would somehow make your statement correct. It's spreading false information.

I also believe he was on to something big and because the elite wouldnt be able to control it... they "dissapeared" him...

What does "dissapeared" him mean then? It seems to imply that he was disposed of.

And it was a reply to this and you agreed with it,

but the super elites snuffed out his life before he could make it happen

This is not about being open minded, it is about not talking BS.

Chaotic I'll try one more time to get you to see the suggestion I made. My suggestion is you attempt a replication of the rosemary ainslie heater circuit which has been demonstrated to have COP 17 in some configurations. that means it produces 17 times as much heat as it should by conventional theory. It's a simple circuit (I just priced it out and it would cost less than a hundred dollars for all the parts). The only downside is you need an oscilloscope that's at least 4 channels to "tune" the circuit. I have priced these too and they go for around 200 bucks if you are willing to accept a USB version.

link to quantum magazine article about a replication

this is a 290 page document that has a link to a for dummies document about the construction and operation of the circuit

I am going to attempt to replicate this if I can convince the gf to let me buy an oscilloscope. Also there is literally hundreds of thousands of words of supplemental information available on the internet at overunity.com and energeticforum.com

I've ran personally ran the numbers and even with a 20% efficient heat engine going to a 90% efficient generator you could generate excess power!

As to the how's and why's of it's operation I'm not sure that anyone is really certain of that but it's been replicated mroe than once openly on the internet which, to me, makes it an ideal candidate for further research.

Originally posted by roguetechie
Chaotic I'll try one more time to get you to see the suggestion I made. My suggestion is you attempt a replication of the rosemary ainslie heater circuit which has been demonstrated to have COP 17 in some configurations. that means it produces 17 times as much heat as it should by conventional theory. It's a simple circuit (I just priced it out and it would cost less than a hundred dollars for all the parts). The only downside is you need an oscilloscope that's at least 4 channels to "tune" the circuit. I have priced these too and they go for around 200 bucks if you are willing to accept a USB version.

link to quantum magazine article about a replication

this is a 290 page document that has a link to a for dummies document about the construction and operation of the circuit

I am going to attempt to replicate this if I can convince the gf to let me buy an oscilloscope. Also there is literally hundreds of thousands of words of supplemental information available on the internet at overunity.com and energeticforum.com

I've ran personally ran the numbers and even with a 20% efficient heat engine going to a 90% efficient generator you could generate excess power!

As to the how's and why's of it's operation I'm not sure that anyone is really certain of that but it's been replicated mroe than once openly on the internet which, to me, makes it an ideal candidate for further research.

edit on 12-5-2012 by roguetechie because: links were screwed up

sheez, just had a look at the circuit diagram of the "Rosemary Ainslie circuit". Ok, I guess if you don't have a clue about electronics, and you managed to build a circuit that actually works, and look with a scope, you will see things happening. The sad part is, that battery wouldn't charge. All the circuit does, is to switch the MOSFET on and off, discharging the battery with pulses. There is no input to even try to charge the battery. I call this circuit BS.

reply to post by Hellhound604


Agreed, I would also like to add that I believe the spike in voltage that these people are seeing on the scope (that they don't seem to know how to use) is the reversed pulse current that happens when you cut DC power from and inductive coil (this is why we have free-wheeling diodes in dc circuits) with out this diode I think the people building them are not fully understanding the principals at work and think its extra energy.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


"I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?"

You may be interested in the quality control measures taken during the design and manufacture of the Turbo Encabulator prototype:

reply to post by GhettoRice


that is in the oscillator with the coils, right? but in the circuit above, there are no coils, yet they keep on talking about inductive energy....

reply to post by Hellhound604


I believe that the inductive part is the large coil wound resistor, which will have the same properties as an air coil (just extra resistance).

The Law of Thermal Dynamics - state that what ever you build it out of will cost more in energy than you will ever derive from it... hummmm ,,,, I wonder if that applies to Magnetic Motors ?

reply to post by GhettoRice


lol, ok ... so WTF do they draw it as a resistor?????? Huge difference. Ok, in this circuit you will just notice some spikes over that component.

Sheez people, you ones that tinkered with old cars. Have you ever adjusted the dwell angle, without the condensor in circuit (or a faulty condensor) and shocked yourself with the primary of the ignition coil (the primary, not the secondary that goes to the spark plugs)? same will apply here if that "resistor" is a coil. (normaly high-power wire-wound resistors are wired in antiphase so that it doesn't have an inductive element.) It is called back-emf. any elementary electronic textbook will tell you exactly how back-emf operates, and while it can give high-voltage pulses, it is not free energy. Read up on inductive circuits.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


Hahahah zomg that vid gets me every time, I wonder how many takes it took to say all that with a straight face.

reply to post by Hellhound604




I believe RL1 at the top of the schem is what your after, they only show a resistor in the other pic and that's were I think they are "purposely" hoodwinking people.

Originally posted by GhettoRice
reply to post by Hellhound604

 

I believe RL1 at the top of the schem is what your after, they only show a resistor in the other pic and that's were I think they are "purposely" hoodwinking people.

easier just to build a self-oscillating circuit with a relay. then you don't need any semiconductors, lol...... here is the same circuit, much simplified and much cheaper, but functionally exactly the same but will it charge the battery? that is for you to build and decide, lol....

I am an engineering/physics student.

I'm not going to list all of the reasons why this may be theoretically impossible.

I am fascinated with this subject matter myself, but for me it is more like comedy in the form of parody than any serious inquiry.

I'm also not going to tell you that perpetual motion is impossible, or that it defies the laws of thermodynamics -- the laws of thermodynamics are based on a theoretical closed loop system, which can not even exist in reality anyway. Same thing with the carnot cycle. Deriving work from a perpetually moving device (even in a vacuum) however is unlikely.

Hypothetically, Let's string a couple million carbon nano-filaments from the earth to the moon, tie off a brush less polyphase generator on the line and use the movement of our moon around the earth to convert 'orbital torque' into usable electricity (kind of like a gravity fed galactic 'water wheel')--even in this hypothetical setup it is not 'perpetual' as all heavenly bodies maintaining a "stable" orbit are actually "falling into the sun" though at what is perceived to be a relatively slow speed. See where I am going with this? The laws of thermodynamics actually would not argue against such a creation for this very reason. If anything entropy would be the primary concern.

There happen to be a number of 'real' 'legitimate' non 'fringe science' studies, experiments and theories taking place at the edge of scientific knowledge right now that actually lead one to make some rather strange hypothesis regarding these sort of subjects.

I'll provide for you here the most credible sources I've yet found in my search for a good laugh:

01. iscmns(dotorg) (Void the Flieschmann/pons(?sp) controversy--I do believe some forms of desktop fusion MAY have actually taken place already, the efficiencies of which I won't speak for. I have my own theories relating to atomic mutation and chrysopoeia that might cause entities like the international banking system to want to keep such publications off the nightly news--I don't blame them. Turning lead or mercury into gold is not a difficult task when you have a low energy fusion reactor or particle accelerator at your personal disposal--look it up, it was done in japan in the early 1940's and again in the basement of the University of Irvine California a few years ago--it comes down to the cost of energy input, which is high w/ hot fusion)

02. rexresearch(com)/plauson/plauson(dot)htm (Hermann Plauson's experiments inspired by Nikola Tesla's research on 'radiant energy' which Plauson chose to call 'atmospheric electricity', this is a method of using atmospheric elevation to take advantage of 'energy potential' differences between ground state & the prior. Tesla has a patent for a similar device / method that he calls his 'Radiant Energy' device, Plauson was able to reach much higher elevations & was able to generate a sincere amount of amperage with little but a few balloons covered in foil & pins).

03. For practical purposes, you could always just buy property along side a river and throw together a few 'tesla turbines' in little to no time at all, but I don't believe that is what you are asking for assistance with.

04. Solar powered Stirling engines are another very practical method, Stirling engines are the most efficient engine ever constructed, they can approach 90% efficiency on the carnot cycle. (There was a Stirling engine floating around a while back using large radiator panels in a pressurized loop system containing a gas that expanded at near room temperature--probably radon--allowing the engine to complete a cycle on even the most cloudy days or at night.)

05. As far as 'magnetic motors' DO NOT LISTEN to the 'armchair engineers', the standard model is still just that--a working model--it is not fact, secondly we still have little to no idea what magnetism 'actually is', there is the magnetic domain theory, the electron angular momentum approach, etc, a lot of what so called 'armchair engineers and physicists' might use to insult research on the outskirts of contemporary physics are still just 'working theories' anyway--we have not found a particle wave or force responsible for gravity OR mass, and, a lot of working professionals in this field are starting to fear that we actually might not ever.

06. As far as methods relating to hydrogen, it is a moot point--hydrogen is an energy carrier, nothing more nothing less, sure it is possible that your method of producing or collecting hydrogen might be 100% efficient, but even with that it is still not 'free energy' or 'over-unity'. Hydrogen may be the most prevalent element in the universe but just like everything else--energy was expended to create it(big bang)--and we only have so much of it to collect--In the paper-clip NASA days there was a design for an interstellar rocket that would collect hydrogen in space and carry none of its own fuel at lift-off, fun stuff...

I'll continue this rant in a bit.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Don't pay any attention or give credence to the armchair scientists in here drinking beer and eating Twinkies telling you it can't be done, there have been many accomplishments done by those who were told the same thing. Good Luck in your research!

reply to post by Boomer1941


Here here!

I replicate novelty 'fringe science' circuits / designs / patents / in my free time from study. Yes I am a complete nerd.

Exempt my rant above, I have had the most success with research done by Tesla as far as efficient / economic methods of collecting energy.

Here is a paragraph from Hermann Plauson's research, I have replicated and verified his results myself:

"This art, which is as new now as wireless was 25 years ago, will attain proportions during the next 25 years that may appear fantastic today. The inventor of the new science, an engineer of note, Herr Hermann Plauson, has devoted years of labor to his researches and he has now actually in use small power plants, that generate electricity direct from the air, day and night, without interruption at practically no cost, once the plant is constructed.
We had occasion, in one of our former issues, to describe the system, roughly, from cabled dispatches, but complete information is available now. The amount of electrical power that resides in our atmosphere is astounding. Herr Plauson found in his experiments that a single balloon sent aloft to a height of 300 yards gave a constant current at 400 volts of 1.8 amperes, or in 24 hours over 17-1/4 kilowatts! By using two balloons in connection with a special condenser battery, the power obtained was 81-1/2 kilowatts in 24 hours. The actual current delivered was 6.8 amperes at 500 volts. "

To the OP get life insurance first and secondly make sure you have a bunker somewhere remote.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Boomer1941
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Don't pay any attention or give credence to the armchair scientists in here drinking beer and eating Twinkies telling you it can't be done, there have been many accomplishments done by those who were told the same thing. Good Luck in your research!

LoL I guess being a Journeyman Electrician makes the armchair more comfortable at least.

reply to post by Boomer1941

Don't pay any attention or give credence to the armchair scientists in here drinking beer and eating Twinkies telling you it can't be done, there have been many accomplishments done by those who were told the same thing. Good Luck in your research!

Honey; I have built many of these circuits. Most of them are actually quite common in DC-DC conversion.

The problem is that people like to use "People said x was impossible!" as a defensive argument for their belief in some conspiracy and/or over-unity device. Then they like to fall back on: "Armchair scientist" arguments and other such things.

I'll put it to you this way: To people such as yourself - electronics is a mystifying and magical subject. It's voodoo. This is why you believe things are possible with it that, bluntly, are retarded. To people like myself - we understand the function of electronics to a very large degree. Sure - there's some questions and concerns about the sub-subatomic scale - but you're not getting into those phenomena with desktop models built in your garage.

When we look at a schematic - we don't see lines or figures - we see current and voltage potential relationships. We see expanding and collapsing magnetic fields, charging and discharging capacitors, the accordion-like crunching of frequency modulation...

So, when someone shows us circuits and designs we are familiar with, and claims them to produce over-unity phenomena... we know it to be the bull# that it is.

Now - if you were to do something -different- not just a circuit - but some kind of new device - or field arrangement... then at least we have something to test that hasn't already experimented with ad-nausea.

I fully intend to flip the laws of thermodynamics the middle finger. The reason I haven't already is because I believe the answer lies in the extremes of energy density, and would require the mass of the moon to construct particle accelerators and/or phase-synched laser arrays of immense proportions.

You'll find that I approach scientific discovery the same way Emperor Palpatine approached planet destruction. If it isn't tearing holes in space or turning the solar system in on itself - I consider it to be a low power application.