Free Energy Using Synthetic Tornadoes

The following link is of a Google search for my patent. (Application no. 2013/0048,086 US patent no. 8,887,745)

www.google.com...

As one can see my patent comes up #1 and at quite a few of the top positions. This is rather impressive in its self. The interesting hit here, at the #2 spot, is a link referencing US patent #7,789,108 on the RPX site. RPX is company which buys "troublesome" patents in order to keep them out of the hands of patent trolls. Patent #7,789,108 is a reference patent cited on my patent. A potential "troublesome" patent for anyone marketing my invention.

This link, especially this high in the search, indicates that, at very least, some one with the help of RPX did some serious investigating into whether Patent #7,789,108 was a threat. Mainly lawyers use this site. It would take many lawyers many hit apiece to get this link at the #2 spot. Lawyers don't work for free and neither does RPX. This means that a lot of money was spent with respect to my free energy patent. And that would occur if and only if my free energy invention really does work, which is what I have been saying all along.

It has been almost 4 years and I have not been contacted (At least not officially) nor have we heard any thing in the news. This means that there really is a PTB keeping a lid on this technology.

I don't know how much longer the PTB will hold things back. But I, probably along with others, have justifiably and completely lost all patient. Hence This post.

Squirrel you asked if there's any desktop extrusion technology specifically for your application. To answer that I'm going to try to be as helpful as I can.

Is there something out there specifically for your application? ..... I'd say almost definitely there's multiple solutions commercially available, but I don't know specifics.

Like much of what I'm working on right now though, I can say for certain that the open source world has any number of ways to accomplish this task without having a masters in mechatronics. I'd like to speak at length with you personally to get a bit more of an idea of what you need right now, and what you may need given a few different outcomes. (tooling is one of those things that smart people sit down and really plan around because building x tool when y is better long term is one of those things that can kill good ideas)

I think we may be able to find you a solution that will help you get to the next level with this. Which I wish you all the success possible with. (did I mention I may just have a way for you to only need to test every third iteration physically? Or that you may be able to get much more improvement from iteration to iteration by doing it?)

Send me a PM if you'd like, I'll happily help

a reply to: roguetechie

By reading this thread, one can infer that

a: I have already built an ST and know that it works. I don't need to build another.

b: Quite a few companies have known about this technology for almost 4 years. By now a number of them most likely have ST based free energy products ready to market. The problem is that the PTB won't let them do so.

Think this is the same PTB that keeps harping about climate change?

What needs to happen, is that, these companies need to "grow a pair" circumvent the PTB and bring these products to market so that everyone can benefit.

If you, roguetechie, know how to inexpensively set up and build the main double chamber extruded part, Please share it with us and post all the details here on this thread.

Wasn't someone on Shark Tank trying to get funding for this?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Wasn't someone on Shark Tank trying to get funding for this?

I don't know? Could you give us more details and perhaps a link.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Here you go...

Mark Sullivan the inventor of the Sullivan Generator has either has invented a device that could change the world as we know it or it's complete science fiction and should never of been on the Shark Tank Show. Mark claims that the Sullivan Generator can create natural energy from the earth's rotation. What's even more interesting is this generator makes a by-product of clean drinking water out of salty ocean water and collects valuable mineral's like manganese and even gold. Gold? yes, that's exactly what he claims, and in very large quantity's.

At first this generator almost seems, we'll, to good to be true. It produces a clean energy from an abundant amount of untapped ocean water, pure drinking water is made in the process and then you collect all the gold particle being filtered out as a by-product. Would it help if you knew he has 36 patents on this invention alone? With the main one being United States Patent: US 6,532,740 for a
Generator Employing the Coriolis Effect.

Link

a reply to: MystikMushroom

This Sullivan generator is in no way related to the ST's of this thread. It could be a pathetic diversion attempt though.

See this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: graysquirrel
a reply to: MystikMushroom

This Sullivan generator is in no way related to the ST's of this thread. It could be a pathetic diversion attempt though.

See this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wasn't trying to create a diversion. I simply remember some guy on a TV show talking about vortexes creating energy.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The diversion comment was primarily aimed at the ones who let him on Shark Tank. If you noticed, starting in October 2011 there were and still are free energy claims, including ones with vortexes, (that will never work) that are hitting semi MSM . Their purpose is to draw attention away from this thread and ST's which do work.

I thought I would bump this thread just for fun.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Thanks. Thats why i found it. Any updates for us?

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Well..... I think the interest in the patent is growing. Because, when I do a Google search for my patent with "midpoint reversed double chamber", besides the top four hits on the first page being related to my patent, almost the whole second page and half the third page are also related.

originally posted by: graysquirrel

I am guessing that this unit pumps air with an output velocity of about 1 in./sec. It is enough air to easily feel but not enough the give any sort of visual demonstration.

I was able to come up with the following equation which gives an estimate of the output air velocity as a function of the chamber diameter and length.

V = (K2)(K1)^(L/d)
where,
V is the output velocity of airflow measured in in/sec,
K2 = 7.45 x 10^(-5) in/sec
K1 = 1.000112 in/sec
L = Length in inches
d =Diameter of the chambers in inches.

It is intended for this equation to be used by some one with resources who wants to verify/experiment with this ST technology. By Using this equation to select L and d for given desired output velocity, one would be assured to build one with an impressive performance.

I believe some organization has already done this. They just haven’t come forward yet because there are certain monetary advantages to waiting until one is ready.

I think I understand the concept and I've been playing with the numbers a little. Are you sure this equation is correct, before I go further here? Also, shouldn't it be in.^3/s instead of in.^2/s? Cubic inches per second as opposed to square inches per second? Interesting research.

a reply to: engineercutout

The key to the equation is this paragraph

It is intended for this equation to be used by some one with resources who wants to verify/experiment with this ST technology. By Using this equation to select L and d for given desired output velocity, one would be assured to build one with an impressive performance.

I was paranoid that some one would build one of these with an L and d that was convenient for manufacturing but not performance. I was afraid that if the performance they got was to small, they would just give up and call hoax. So, I created this equation base on air flow that I could feel. At very best the equation is a wild ass guess.

The actual performance is most likely far better then the equation, because, as a result of my low cost production techniques, The ST I built has air leaks.

The air velocity is in in./sec. When you multiply the velocity V times the cross sectional area of the chamber you will get in.^3/sec.

a reply to: graysquirrel

If this equation is accurate, then it looks like your sweet spot is between 100,000 to 1 and 150,000 to 1. At 100,000 to 1, the equation solves for 5.445 in./s. With a 1" chamber diameter, that value solves for 17.11in^3/s. At a length to diameter ratio of 150,000 to 1, the equation solves for 1472 in./s. With a 1" chamber diameter, that value solves for a whopping 4624 in^3/s!

I think you should go bigger. If you can make enough pieces that can be fastened together, that should do the trick. Besides, if you go smaller, you may end up with a device that won't do any work. Not to mention the fact that you'll be waiting on the druthers of a manufacturer to make your tubing.

If you make PTP sections that are several inches long that you can fasten to each other, you can arrange them in coils within your project area. A 150,000in.(12,500ft.) overall length would produce 398 10 foot coils, a 100,000in.(8333ft.,4in,) tube would produce 266 10 ft. coils. Awfully high if you stack each coil on top of the last, but if you had 15 to 20 coils one inside the other per vertical level the height should only be a few feet, assuming the tube was just over an inch thick and just over two inches high. 4 624 cubic inches per second is alot of air flow. About 2.6ft^3/s or approximately 160 ft.^3/min.

You could lengthen it incrementally from there until you begin to worry about your materials failing. The numbers begin to climb more quickly than before in comparison to the ratio as you continue up from a ratio of 150 000 to 1. At a ratio of 200 000 to 1 your equation says 3 979 311in./s, which with a 1" chamber should be 12 501 375 cubic inches per second, or 7235 cubic feet per second. That's 434 075 cubic feet per minute!

a reply to: engineercutout

I like going smaller. Because, the exponential part of the equation will result in the air flow velocity compensating for the smaller tube diameter in a much smaller over all volume. Remember the amount of power available from the air flow is proportional to V^3.

Another trick is to gradually taper the tube size so that the input output ends will have large diameters while the bulk of the middle part can take advantage of the higher performance per volume of a much smaller tube size.

a reply to: graysquirrel

It'll take up less space, sure, but I think you run into fabrication issues as you reduce size. You're slitting and glueing tubing where you're at, which as you've already said makes for a leaky system. I'd at least scale it up slightly if I were you to a size that will allow you to easily fabricate PTP's.

It's always easier to call from the armchair. I'm sure my proposed method would drive the price up a great deal. I think if you can't find a PTP component that's already being manufactured for some other purpose, you need to figure out how to make them inexpensively, or design components that you know you can have inexpensively produced and commission their production.

I am also of the opinion that technology of this nature gets quietly stepped on. If your idea winds up being workable, you will not have any energy companies beating down your door to market your idea. If you get to the point of setting up a large scale manufacturing and marketing operation, barriers will be introduced into your path to the marketplace. You may get offers, but those will be from companies looking to shelve your device.

Once you sign a non-disclosure agreement, you will face prison time for talking about that idea if that's what you've agreed to. Would you sign one for a million dollars? How about ten million? How about one million and we won't blank(insert appropriately insidious threat here)? Whether any measures that were actually that drastic would be undertaken, there are a number of more mundane potential barriers that could be brought to bear against you.

My point is you should just build your device. Don't wait for or expect an investor or developer to come along and make it happen for you. You might be waiting forever. Building it yourself and quietly teaching others of your success will probably be allowed. Going for the big money will probably get you shut down on some sort of technicality. This is just my opinion based on my own observations and research. I can't prove it, but I would guess there are others who would agree, and probably some who could prove it if they were allowed to.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Plus if it's workable, once you get to a length that causes serious air flow, you'll hit a wall on the amount of air you can move through that smaller hole without destroying the material you're working with. Bigger channel, more airflow. Half inch channel, you could move a lot of air. Quarter inch or smaller, not so much, at least not without rupturing your tubing.

If you do the PTP method, then a half inch, 3/8ths maybe. Anything smaller would be hard to fabricate without specialized equipment. At least, PTP's with any length to them would.

a reply to: engineercutout

To clarify, The latest ST, the one I patented, uses an extruded double chamber part and not a PTP stack like the previous version. One could use a stacking method of production, however, it would be vary inefficient.

You are correct in that going small would lead to higher pressures which could burst the tube. However, using the right material and thicker walls should solve that problem.

There are very powerful people that want to postpone free energy indefinitely and there are some very powerful people that want free energy to come out now. Instead of arguing over who is going to win this struggle or whether or not I should try to build and market this my self, lets take a look at the elephant in the room.

Although the ST’s in this thread pump air, If you fill the ST chambers with a conductor which has freely moving electrons you will have an electron ST (EST) which will create contained electron tornados resulting in an electron pump or DC electrical power supply. Like a perpetual battery.

An EST is actually easy to make using printed circuit board fabrication technology. First one etches a long trace a little bit wider than twice its thickness. Then, one makes second pass and create a notch down the center of this trace. But, only etch the notch down about 80% of the thickness leaving a directional coupler for electrons. Jumpers can then be used to create the midpoint reversal. Using multilayer board technology, one can create an even longer and more powerful EST.

With that said, I would like to have you read one of my other threads (if you haven’t already done so) and tell me what you think.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

yep, yep.....this is getting on out there into the possibilities.
in a vortex....think of cold air and hot air for free energy....next comes.....I shouldn't post but...an implosion engine....the one you heard where the carb has one wire hooked to it. the old man that told me looks just like Neil Young, but he's real.....set in his ways....and about 72 now.