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.

 

Perpetual Generator Can Power Your House for Free!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

If you control the funding, you control the program.

With that....'nuff said.

 


"Big oil" funds every university in the world? Wow, never knew…

You'd think there's be a paper trail or something. And what about ITER, they just got bored with suppressing or they only focus on backyard inventors?




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





"Big oil" funds every university in the world? Wow, never knew…


Well, there you go, you learnt something today. That is really good. Study and research a bit and you may come to understand and be in a position to deny ignorance.

So many inventions and ideas have been suppressed down the ages for either power or money!

P



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

boncho
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

If you control the funding, you control the program.

With that....'nuff said.

 


"Big oil" funds every university in the world? Wow, never knew…

You'd think there's be a paper trail or something. And what about ITER, they just got bored with suppressing or they only focus on backyard inventors?


Boncho my friend, you're being obtuse for the sake of obtuseness.

Big oil may not fund directly, but they can withdraw funds elsewhere to control whatever they want. You know it. If you need help remembering, I would be happy to oblige a little later.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
i suppose i should add: "big oil" isn't the funding that I reference. "Big government" is the funding that gets threatened.

Big oil is a means to an end. It is the glue that holds the economy together. Messing with that is a threat to national security.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Well, the seven hundred kilowatts it produces would be less than 108 bucks a month and it would require storage of electricity for the capacitors on motors and appliances. That is about a kilowatt per hour. Energy use is not even and sometimes many things are running at the same time. If circuitry would control a fridge and freezer from both running at the same time, it wouldn't be bad.

If this runs for five years steady it would have to be well built. At five grand for five years, that would come out to be a cost of about eighty three bucks a month. Maybe it can have bearings and brushes replaced within that time. It would have to be in a clean environment and dry. It might heat the garage though, that is a plus.

There are a lot of unknowns here, I suppose if you can't get power it would be a great investment, better than running a gas or diesel generator.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


I don't recall you asking, frankly, but soon as I get back to the apartment I am yours. For now, my focus is a very nice pad see-ew and some tom-kah soup. And a couple of Chang beers.

For a start, though, electrons in your circuit will actually move very slowly, not the speed of light, and you should also recall that electrons "fall" through a potential drop the way rocks fall from a cliff.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   

older1
I live in southwest lower Michigan. 13-14 years ago I was contacted by mail from a company called Vermre Tre (not sure that is the correct spelling). They stated they were signing up 500 customers to receive a device they said was about the size of an outdoor A/C unit that was a self-sustaining electrical generator, that would provide all electrical power needed in a single family residence. Several months after I signed up I received a letter stating they were going to begin installations shortly, and that after 500 customers receive the devices they couldn't be denied. I never heard another word from them. They did not ask for any money for the device or installation,(from the first 500 installs). I personally believe they were legit and were stopped from carrying out their plans.


I was in a closed investor meeting awhile ago and the CEO was presenting numbers from "Sign ups" and "future customers" too… Your deduction that this must have been real could have been nothing more than someone using your name and signature to try and solicit investor funds. Happens daily.

Sadly, the marketing world offers up more data in media kits than most start ups or venture caps looking for investor funds. (This speaks volumes if you have ever looked at flubbed advertising numbers…)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

pheonix358

All right, try this!

A simple circuit, 100V DC feeding a ten Ohm resistor. How does that produce heat. The Science answer is that the electrons are doing the work. The Electrons are flowing, OK! As they approach the resistor they are traveling near light speed, they have a charge and a mass. When they leave the resistor having done some work their speed, mass and charge are unchanged. So where did the energy come from?


Let's see. You've got a 10 Ohm load with a 100V DC potential drop across it. The power dissipated in the load will be v^^2/r, or 1kW.

It produces heat by dissipating power. You get power from a flow of current by losing potential. Potential is sort of analogous to gravitational potential. At the top of your resistor, the electric potential is 100V. At the bottom of the resistor, it's 0. You've lost 100V of potential. There's your energy.

Electrons doing the work - check.
Electrons are flowing - check.

They do not approach the resistor at near light speed. They flow quite slowly. This is called the electron drift velocity. When you complete the circuit, the potential flows around the components of the circuit at nearly the speed of light. This affects the statistical motion of electrons in the circuit. If, for example, coming into your resistor I had a copper wire with a cross section of 1 square mm, the average electron velocity in the wire would be about 1mm per second.

As they pass through the resistor, the electrons bounce off the fixed atoms in the resistor, transferring their kinetic energy to the resistor, and losing potential. If you want to go through the difficulty of banging through the Drude model, great, but it will end up giving you the same answer if you just use I^^2R or V^^2/R.

See also: Drude gas model, electron drift velocity



Yes we can use electricity, but we know diddly poop about it at a fundamental level.


Electricity is the flow of charge carriers due to an imposed potential gradient.



Same as gravity, we can measure its effects, but understand it, no way.


Gravity's something where we can actually CALCULATE and PREDICT its effects with great accuracy, so the models we have work pretty well. The problem with detecting gravitons (or whatnot, depending on which theory you use) is that gravity is so weak. That makes it rather challenging.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


This answer demonstrates the whole problem and the absolute abysmal nature of science. All of your answers are based on models and theory. Not one shred of reality. You have no actual understanding of what is factually happening. Oh, electrons are knocking around.

The electrons come into the resistor and they come out with no change in their speed, mass or charge.

Science is built on Theory, aka, someones unproven ideas aka conjecture.

Your answer for gravity shows you (Don't take it personally please) and science have no grasp of what causes gravity. None. You have theory and more models. You can take you pick of models and theories. You have many to choose from. You have your favorites , other have their favorites and in the end, no one actually 'knows' anything!

Give me real answers.

P



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358

Science is built on Theory, aka, someones unproven ideas aka conjecture.

 


AKA Hypotheses proven as sound understanding by empirical evidence. "Theory" in science is not the same as "theory" in layman.




Your answer for gravity shows you (Don't take it personally please) and science have no grasp of what causes gravity. None. You have theory and more models. You can take you pick of models and theories. You have many to choose from. You have your favorites , other have their favorites and in the end, no one actually 'knows' anything!


Unicorn farts. The world is powered by unicorn farts. Exactly what kind of insight does it give you knowing the truth?


edit on 11-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Unicorn farts. The world is powered by unicorn farts. Exactly what kind of insight does it give you knowing the truth?


Really, this is the best answer you have? Unicorn farts?
Ok, I like the answer. Makes as much sense as anything else!





AKA Hypotheses proven as sound understanding by empirical evidence. "Theory" in science is not the same as "theory" in layman.


Oh, Bollocks. Science changes theory almost as much as we change underwear. Empirical evidence falls over constantly which BTW is why theory changes so bloody often. Theory is ego driven. Always has been. You knock a lot of threads on this subject based on someone else's ego driven conjecture. If Theory was so damn good it would not need to change so often. Some have stood the test of time only to fall apart spectacularly.

P

edit on 11/12/2013 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

pheonix358
reply to post by Bedlam
 


This answer demonstrates the whole problem and the absolute abysmal nature of science. All of your answers are based on models and theory. Not one shred of reality. You have no actual understanding of what is factually happening. Oh, electrons are knocking around.

The electrons come into the resistor and they come out with no change in their speed, mass or charge.

Science is built on Theory, aka, someones unproven ideas aka conjecture.


It's built on experimental evidence which leads to conceptually unifying theories. Bedlam has it right.



Your answer for gravity shows you (Don't take it personally please) and science have no grasp of what causes gravity. None. You have theory and more models. You can take you pick of models and theories. You have many to choose from. You have your favorites , other have their favorites and in the end, no one actually 'knows' anything!

Give me real answers.

P


And your "real answer" will be different from a "theory" and a "model" exactly how now?



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
after they went public I heard nothing about them. so my guess is it's a hoax. Show me a website where I an buy one with instrucitons on how to hook it up, and other peoples customers testimonials that it works? Ihaven't seen that yet.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 





And your "real answer" will be different from a "theory" and a "model" exactly how now?


It would be definitive, a real answer, a factual answer. One based on what actually causes gravity.

P



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358


Oh, Bollocks. Science changes theory almost as much as we change underwear.

 


It's accumulative. It doesn't so much change as it evolves.



Empirical evidence falls over constantly which BTW is why theory changes so bloody often.


Like?



You knock a lot of threads on this subject based on someone else's ego driven conjecture. If Theory was so damn good it would not need to change so often.


Examples?



Some have stood the test of time only to fall apart spectacularly.


Examples?



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

pheonix358
reply to post by mbkennel
 





And your "real answer" will be different from a "theory" and a "model" exactly how now?


It would be definitive, a real answer, a factual answer. One based on what actually causes gravity.

P


What isn't factual about gravity being a force?

If science determined that a sub-atomic particle caused gravity would you not just extend the goal posts and ask why is this particle responsible for this attribute"?

Or are you looking for god and woo woo metaphysic to answer your questions? How come if science has a limited understanding that equates to us knowing absolutely nothing?

A factual statement is a factual statement. You could not read this if you were dead -factual statement.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


You are now being deliberately obtuse! If this is the best you have then I have no faith whatsoever in your brand of science. facts are facts, conjecture is conjecture. If you do not know the difference then you loose respect in my eyes. You are smart enough to know the difference boncho so I can only come to the obvious conclusion.

P



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Hoax I'm afraid. There is no such thing as free energy. It would be nice if the laws of physics can be violated, but they can't.


Also, science does understand gravity. It's one of the four fundemental forces of nature. Of course we understand it.

I suggest those who don't believe science has any sort of grasp of gravity start here:

en.wikipedia.org...

And then expand ones reading to uncover the universe of really clever proven science we know about the force of gravity.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   

pheonix358
reply to post by boncho
 


You are now being deliberately obtuse! If this is the best you have then I have no faith whatsoever in your brand of science. facts are facts, conjecture is conjecture.
P


I was asking for your definition, not asking you for answers I don't already know. It seems you have your own interpretations.

I also asked for examples for some of your statements. Or does your science not need any sort of explanation/supporting evidence? Just curious.

edit on 11-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   

nighthawk1954
intellihub.com...


Here is the Description associated with the posted YouTube video:


Published on Mar 7, 2012
Here is a link to an Update from 2011 www.ufo-blogger.com...

Update: Yet again, Facebook censored the article, particularly in U.S. by deleting comments, wall posts and even forcing its user to enter security text code prior to SHARE the article link on their wall.

Now big question is how to fightback, our answer is please share the link with everyone via email & ask your friend to do it same.. and tweet it with #Freeenergy



THE world may soon be able to buy one of the Far North's most controversial yet revolutionary inventions.

The Lutec 1000 free energy machine have resurfaced after six years of steering clear of the public spotlight, having been granted patents in at least 60 countries around the world, including the US, China and India.

Engineers John Christie and Lou Brits, who have endured intense criticism after they first unveiled their invention in 2001, are now preparing to construct a prototype of their revolutionary power device they hope to market within the next two years.

The dynamic duo said they felt somewhat vindicated they had been able to land patents for their device and have had the Lutec verified by an independent engineer.

"When we first kicked off, there was a huge fuss about it and people said we'd never get patents for it," Mr Christie said.

"They said it would never work, so we couldn't get patents, so it's a good thing to see now."

www.scribd.com...

The generator works as an energy amplifier, generating up to 10 times the amount of electricity it consumes.

The Lutec draws its power from a bank of batteries, with the motor turning due to powerful permanent magnets at its core being attracted and then repulsed from steel cores of fixed coils.

It does not work via perpetual motion, rather it relies on natural magnetic forces and a pulsed electrical input.

The results of the generator were verified by independent engineers from SGS Australia following a test earlier this year, which confirmed the energy output from the generator was indeed greater than its input.

www.ufo-blogger.com...
========================================¬============
This video was from a saved archive from 2009 . . . i suppose the original video has been taken down, so not sure who to credit.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join