Turion Yesterday, 03:09 PM
There are 4 points I would like to make about electricity
1. Electricity is not consumed by the load, it is not "converted" to mechanical energy or heat. and the load operates because current passes THROUGH it. The load doesn't care WHAT you do with the energy once it has gone through the load.In most of our circuits the energy is sent to ground and lost.
2. DC energy can be recovered (MOST of it) if used properly, but it can only be used to create energy if you use pulsed DC
3. DC energy can be looped back to the source that provided it, while doing work along the way and MOST of it can be recovered.
4. We have had the technology to GENERATE energy for a very long time. The problem is we expend an amount equal or MORE than we put in, to get the energy out. That has to STOP
There are 4 points I would like to make about electricity
1. Electricity is not consumed by the load, it is not "converted" to mechanical energy or heat. and the load operates because current passes THROUGH it. The load doesn't care WHAT you do with the energy once it has gone through the load.In most of our circuits the energy is sent to ground and lost.
2. DC energy can be recovered (MOST of it) if used properly, but it can only be used to create energy if you use pulsed DC
3. DC energy can be looped back to the source that provided it, while doing work along the way and MOST of it can be recovered.
4. We have had the technology to GENERATE energy for a very long time. The problem is we expend an amount equal or MORE than we put in, to get the energy out. That has to STOP
I, obviously, have no expertise with pulsed DC.
And simulators cannot make the distinctions, which you are making, in filtering out the presumption that physics (namely, the consumption of power) has anything to do with the simulator's activity. This distinction (which you make) does not surprise me. Yet, it points out my oversight which I couldn't have seen by merely peering into various simulations of virtual circuits. Thanks for pointing this out.
It reminds me of a perception of mine (earlier in the year when I was drafting my provisional patent proposal and included within that proposal at pages 74 to 76 of this PDF file...[FN]) in which the consumption and generation of power may have nothing to do with anything which may "cause" these things to happen. Causality is our presumptive opinion we tack onto our experiences. Yet, causality and responses to causality may be occurring independently of one another.
[FN] - http://vinyasi.info/mhoslaw/Provisio...2063221840.pdf
Where is the justice in Christ performing a miracle of multiplying a few loaves of bread and a few pieces of fish into enough food to feed a multitude of people?
Where is the American Way of Commerce when He turned worthless water into valuable wine and refused to charge a fee for His kind and brotherly service?
This is what I mean by “slippage” among gears which are loosely enmeshed. There is no direct causal relationship that would make any commercial sense, nor any moral sense, to justify giving away a substantial quantity of valuable merchandise for free! Nor, stealing valuable merchandise without due compensation made towards its owners.
Yet, that's what “free energy” implies! All the customer has to supply is the need for a product or service and the end result is guaranteed provided the customer no longer allows himself, or herself, to waste these gifts in senseless pursuits, as Christ admonishes the beneficiary to... “Go and sin no more.” This is a normal life. Anything else less than this is subnormal, substandard and subhuman.
The whole point behind physics is the presumption that accountability is all-encompassing and this obsession of physics is a misrepresentation under certain circumstances as the preceding analysis in FIG. 31 of a simple, non-modified spark gap has demonstrated.
So, why do a segregated analysis of free energy circuits if all inputs and outputs cannot be linked in a logically causal set of relationships? Why go to any trouble to convince conventional perspectives when conventional perspectives will be superseded by Mho's Law which transcends the strict logic of accountability?
I guess, it would be to point out the flaw of assuming that we can, or should, account for everything?
I set out pursuing this discussion with the belief that a segregated analysis would defy irrational non-acceptance of overunity circuits in general and my invention in particular. To my dismay, the circuit of FIG. 26 and its segregated analysis in FIG. 31 defies Sir Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion which states that, “the rate of change of momentum of a body over time is directly proportional to the force applied, and occurs in the same direction as the applied force.” The circuit of FIG. 26 defies Newton's second law of motion, because FIG. 31 exhibits no causal link between the source of voltage at the 100V battery of that circuit and the resultant wattages and volts/amperes occurring within the spark gap analyzed in FIG. 31.
Despite this caveat undermining the conventional wisdom of physics, we get some hints as to what is going on within the spark gap (courtesy of FIG. 31) which spiritualizes an otherwise entrenched materialism engulfing physics by converting materialism into immaterialism.
Diode, D1 (within Micro-Cap's spark gap macro) is consuming a tremendous amount of energy (nearly 3½ kilowatts) in contrast to the battery, V1, which is producing reactance at a far smaller rate of nearly 3 volts/amperes. These are the only components worth focusing our attention on since these are the only components with the largest consumption of energy and production of reactance occurring anywhere throughout this circuit. Yet, their absolute magnitudes do not equal each other. Energy simply disappears without ever having appeared in the first place (as reactance). The ratio of this disappearance is vastly greater than its appearance by a factor of one thousand to one (1.28783k to 1) which is the mathematical reciprocal (multiplicative inverse) of ¾ of one-tenth of one percent (1 ÷ 0.0007765).
In addition to FIG. 31, variations of this anomaly will shortly repeat itself (at FIG. 41 and FIG. 58 through FIG. 63, inclusive, and FIG. 67, and FIG. 74 and FIG. 75, below) when I present a segregated analysis of another simple spark gap circuit followed by various versions of my invention.
This defiance of Newton's second law suggests an intriguing cosmology in that all of creation is the manifestation of “cycles of repetition” wherein the cycles do not possess an “a priori” first cause, nor do they possess an ultimate conclusion. Instead, each cycle is part of an endless progression of repetitions whose causal linkages only exist in between any two cycles of repetition. This relationship between any two adjacent temporal cycles is the source for our scientific laws and mathematical relationships, but is restricted to this limited domain of temporal jurisdiction and does not (cannot) supersede it.
Causality and its resultants only applies to the interconnecting relationship between two successive cycles of repetitious activity. This limited domain cannot transcend this limited jurisdiction and become applicable to all of time. Any scientific attempt on our part to transcend this limited domain is overtaken by amorphous bliss. And if we can become so familiar with this bliss such that it is always in the background of our awareness, even upon the event we know of as our own mortal death, then we have achieved enlightenment.
A circuit can get a momentary glimpse of bliss whenever it transcends causality, such as: within the context of Mho's Law operating within a spark gap or within an analogous circuit devoid of any spark gap, because it is during this transcendence of causality in which bliss is no longer overshadowed by the rigors of causality which we know to be scientifically and karmically validated by our vast history of expertise on this subject of both material and spiritual causalities.
It is this transcendence of causality which accounts for “free energy” by not accounting for its segregated analysis, but by preventing any possibility for a segregated analysis to make any logical sense.
Where is the American Way of Commerce when He turned worthless water into valuable wine and refused to charge a fee for His kind and brotherly service?
This is what I mean by “slippage” among gears which are loosely enmeshed. There is no direct causal relationship that would make any commercial sense, nor any moral sense, to justify giving away a substantial quantity of valuable merchandise for free! Nor, stealing valuable merchandise without due compensation made towards its owners.
Yet, that's what “free energy” implies! All the customer has to supply is the need for a product or service and the end result is guaranteed provided the customer no longer allows himself, or herself, to waste these gifts in senseless pursuits, as Christ admonishes the beneficiary to... “Go and sin no more.” This is a normal life. Anything else less than this is subnormal, substandard and subhuman.
The whole point behind physics is the presumption that accountability is all-encompassing and this obsession of physics is a misrepresentation under certain circumstances as the preceding analysis in FIG. 31 of a simple, non-modified spark gap has demonstrated.
So, why do a segregated analysis of free energy circuits if all inputs and outputs cannot be linked in a logically causal set of relationships? Why go to any trouble to convince conventional perspectives when conventional perspectives will be superseded by Mho's Law which transcends the strict logic of accountability?
I guess, it would be to point out the flaw of assuming that we can, or should, account for everything?
I set out pursuing this discussion with the belief that a segregated analysis would defy irrational non-acceptance of overunity circuits in general and my invention in particular. To my dismay, the circuit of FIG. 26 and its segregated analysis in FIG. 31 defies Sir Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion which states that, “the rate of change of momentum of a body over time is directly proportional to the force applied, and occurs in the same direction as the applied force.” The circuit of FIG. 26 defies Newton's second law of motion, because FIG. 31 exhibits no causal link between the source of voltage at the 100V battery of that circuit and the resultant wattages and volts/amperes occurring within the spark gap analyzed in FIG. 31.
Despite this caveat undermining the conventional wisdom of physics, we get some hints as to what is going on within the spark gap (courtesy of FIG. 31) which spiritualizes an otherwise entrenched materialism engulfing physics by converting materialism into immaterialism.
Diode, D1 (within Micro-Cap's spark gap macro) is consuming a tremendous amount of energy (nearly 3½ kilowatts) in contrast to the battery, V1, which is producing reactance at a far smaller rate of nearly 3 volts/amperes. These are the only components worth focusing our attention on since these are the only components with the largest consumption of energy and production of reactance occurring anywhere throughout this circuit. Yet, their absolute magnitudes do not equal each other. Energy simply disappears without ever having appeared in the first place (as reactance). The ratio of this disappearance is vastly greater than its appearance by a factor of one thousand to one (1.28783k to 1) which is the mathematical reciprocal (multiplicative inverse) of ¾ of one-tenth of one percent (1 ÷ 0.0007765).
In addition to FIG. 31, variations of this anomaly will shortly repeat itself (at FIG. 41 and FIG. 58 through FIG. 63, inclusive, and FIG. 67, and FIG. 74 and FIG. 75, below) when I present a segregated analysis of another simple spark gap circuit followed by various versions of my invention.
This defiance of Newton's second law suggests an intriguing cosmology in that all of creation is the manifestation of “cycles of repetition” wherein the cycles do not possess an “a priori” first cause, nor do they possess an ultimate conclusion. Instead, each cycle is part of an endless progression of repetitions whose causal linkages only exist in between any two cycles of repetition. This relationship between any two adjacent temporal cycles is the source for our scientific laws and mathematical relationships, but is restricted to this limited domain of temporal jurisdiction and does not (cannot) supersede it.
Causality and its resultants only applies to the interconnecting relationship between two successive cycles of repetitious activity. This limited domain cannot transcend this limited jurisdiction and become applicable to all of time. Any scientific attempt on our part to transcend this limited domain is overtaken by amorphous bliss. And if we can become so familiar with this bliss such that it is always in the background of our awareness, even upon the event we know of as our own mortal death, then we have achieved enlightenment.
A circuit can get a momentary glimpse of bliss whenever it transcends causality, such as: within the context of Mho's Law operating within a spark gap or within an analogous circuit devoid of any spark gap, because it is during this transcendence of causality in which bliss is no longer overshadowed by the rigors of causality which we know to be scientifically and karmically validated by our vast history of expertise on this subject of both material and spiritual causalities.
It is this transcendence of causality which accounts for “free energy” by not accounting for its segregated analysis, but by preventing any possibility for a segregated analysis to make any logical sense.
Leave a comment: