Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #631  
Old 06-07-2015, 03:52 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,890
I hope I am not boring everyone. to bad.

This shows more than the video did on how David John

did some of his Skinner work as different as it may seem.














__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #632  
Old 06-07-2015, 03:53 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,890













__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 06-07-2015, 04:01 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,890
Here is the last of what David Johns 38 year quest is showing

in picture form. Skinner did it different both wobble taking

advantage of gravity. As a beginner this stuff is easier to grasp

for me and since David John started 38 years ago maybe he

wised up trying not to show all of the complicated designs

first. At least not to the average person.

We could learn a thing or two from this guy and throw out

what we don't like








__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 06-07-2015 at 04:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 06-07-2015, 05:05 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
has to load the output

Where is the free fall in the machine? The shaft that the weights are connected to rotate in a fixed position... I know the shaft is rotating on its own axis while rotating around the cycloid gear (don't recall the name for that), but the weights are at a fixed height - the shaft does not slide up and down.

The weights are not moving independently of the shaft it is on since they are screwed on to it with plumbing pieces - so since the shaft is at a fixed height, so are the weights.

Moving the weight in and of itself is not proof of work being done. Yes, force x distance = work but the same thing applies to the Bedini SG.

The wheel turns, we have said from the beginning add that work to the electrical recovery and it is over 1.0 COP. It can be more but this is the basic. When we talk about the mechanical work being done, we're not talking about the free spinning wheel with no load attached to the shaft. The reason we know how much work is being done is because we have attached a wheel to the shaft and loaded it with friction from a leather strap and each end of the strap is hooked to a spring loaded scale. The work we quote is from actually calculating THAT work done by overcoming the friction of the leather shaft and in the attraction mode, it has shown to be up to 30% of the electrical equivelant. So if there is 0.9 cop on a good build, adding the work of the wheel is a cop of 1.2 cop for example. When loading it up, the input and output changes, but they stay fairly proportional to each other and we can still see the input compared to recovery under load. That is where the claims came from, not just making something up about how much mechanical work is being done because the wheel is free spinning with no load attached. Of course it is not designed for much mechanical work since the wheel is a switch, but the point is, the mechanical work has to be calculated with a load.

With this other machine, that work claim is invalid because the claim needs to be based on giving the rotating weights/shaft assembly a load and seeing what work is there and then seeing what the input is and then compare. With that machine, I would predict that any real load on the shaft will cause the input motor to catch on fire since it is a conventional motor and the current will increase.

He needs to do this:



Also, as soon as you attach a real load to it, it is instantly reflected back to the input motor and the motor will burn up. That is because the output is directly proportional to the input with losses. This in and of itself is evidence (and the weights being at a fixed height) that the machine is a closed loop system with no ability to utilize and put free gravitational potential (or other free environmental input) to work. The principles of simple closed systems apply - there is absolutely nothing in its mechanism to regauge itself to a new potential difference in any way to allow a periodic input of occasional free input from anywhere.





Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
Here is a comment

gconol 6 months ago
Patent pending my ass .... this is william Skinner's idea. Stop stealing other people's work.


Oh yeah Aaron I know what i was going to say now.

When JOHN did the 4 video's he showed how only .5 watts-1 watt

was needed to move all of those weights in a wobbling fashion.

I thought it significant that with 4X the weights added that

under 1 watt was needed to move that much mass.

If I hooked a scooter motor up to that much weight traveling

in a circle it would cost me far more than 1 watt. Wouldn't

you agree with that simple assessment?

Sure JOHN is way off on the idea but shouldn't it cost more

than 1 watt?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 06-07-2015, 05:14 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
elliptical orbit

That's fine if that is what you want to believe.

That wheel is irrelevant to the point that the crossbar is obviously moving and at the end of the crossbar, there are the little "cam" or swingarms that rotate independently of the oscillating crossbar and the top of the shaft is moved in an elliptical orbit.

We can agree to disagree and I don't think there is much more either of us can add to this particular segment of the Skinner machine that can emphasize our beliefs on it any more than we already have.

I'm open to you proving me wrong with a build that moves the shaft in the circular orbit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaMoRo View Post
Hello Aaron,

This is what I see:
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 06-07-2015, 05:17 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,890
Okay now I follow you. Even though it is a little to much

for me to chew on, I see that a load is needed on the other

John device. Now I am looking at this one of yours again

and it seems so much different to me after the other video.

Thanks Aaron.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolNozy8UEY
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 06-07-2015, 05:23 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
elliptical orbit

Even if the input lever is moving in a strict linear motion, the lower shaft is still moved in an elliptical orbit. With the input lever moving in an elliptical motion, we're compounding these advantages even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
Okay now I follow you. Even though it is a little to much

for me to chew on, I see that a load is needed on the other

John device. Now I am looking at this one of yours again

and it seems so much different to me after the other video.

Thanks Aaron.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolNozy8UEY
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 06-07-2015, 10:24 AM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
To MagnaMoRo, In your post #604 you linked the video I put up , but you also put that blow-up beside it. How do you do this? I would like to try to clean it up some but can't seem to save it in motion only still.

To Aaron, Did you watch the video from post 604 and MoRos' blow-up?
The front crossbar is above the cam when the cam rotates ,as it passes the crossbar, because of the poor quality video, to me it is giving the illusion of the crossbar moving. Look to the left you can see the crossbar (barely) ,but it doesn't move.
Do you see this?
Maybe the best is to build it both ways and test.
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 06-07-2015, 06:50 PM
MagnaMoRo's Avatar
MagnaMoRo MagnaMoRo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: I live on Earth with some 7 Billion others of my kind.
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by shylo View Post
To MagnaMoRo, In your post #604 you linked the video I put up , but you also put that blow-up beside it. How do you do this? I would like to try to clean it up some but can't seem to save it in motion only still.
Hi shylo,

If you go back to that post and press the QUOTE button as if you where going to respond to my post, you will be able to see the code generated for the response wherein you can edit your message. Study the code and you will understand how to place things side by side; don't use a space or return between the linked pictures and/or videos. Once you create your response just be sure to preview it to make sure it looks the way you expect. You can edit and preview as often as you need to before final posting.

Animated .gif files are built up in layers and will only display as animations in a web-browser or perhaps in some other specially designed software, otherwise usually only the first layer will show. I believe that if you try to copy-and-past from an animated .gif it will only copy the first layer. To get the hole animated .gif over to your computer you have to actually download the .gif file by using "Save Image As" from the Right Mouse Click menu.

I hope that helps.
MagnaMoRo
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 06-07-2015, 07:04 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
the crossbar moves

Quote:
Originally Posted by shylo View Post
To MagnaMoRo, In your post #604 you linked the video I put up , but you also put that blow-up beside it. How do you do this? I would like to try to clean it up some but can't seem to save it in motion only still.

To Aaron, Did you watch the video from post 604 and MoRos' blow-up?
The front crossbar is above the cam when the cam rotates ,as it passes the crossbar, because of the poor quality video, to me it is giving the illusion of the crossbar moving. Look to the left you can see the crossbar (barely) ,but it doesn't move.
Do you see this?
Maybe the best is to build it both ways and test.
artv
I can zoom in all the way and see that the pixels are moving - it isn't an illusion. Even zoomed out, it is apparent. I show that in the short video clip I posted. The crossbar is moving.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #641  
Old 06-07-2015, 10:35 PM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
Hi Aaron, Can the pixals differentiate between the stationary crossbar, and the rotating cam ,when they cross paths?
That white streak you see ,is the trailing edge of the cam ,as it rotates clockwise , looking down from the top...
The white streak appears, just as the cam is going to the inside of the structure passing under the crossbar frame work that holds the drive for the cams.
The cams are connected to the pulley or gear that is rotating in a circular path.
The rod that travels down to the gimble and translation plate moves in a circular path.
The rod terminates in the plate, The upper weight is attached to that plate, The lower rod is attached to that plate, With lower and upper rods attached to the plate makes it sit off level.
With the plate off level , one side is high, one side is low, The upper weight fits in there somewhere, along with the lower.
I think you get gain for about a quarter the rotation.
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 06-08-2015, 04:11 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
the crossbar is moving

Quote:
Originally Posted by shylo View Post
Hi Aaron, Can the pixals differentiate between the stationary crossbar, and the rotating cam ,when they cross paths?
That white streak you see ,is the trailing edge of the cam ,as it rotates clockwise , looking down from the top...
The white streak appears, just as the cam is going to the inside of the structure passing under the crossbar frame work that holds the drive for the cams.
The cams are connected to the pulley or gear that is rotating in a circular path.
The rod that travels down to the gimble and translation plate moves in a circular path.
The rod terminates in the plate, The upper weight is attached to that plate, The lower rod is attached to that plate, With lower and upper rods attached to the plate makes it sit off level.
With the plate off level , one side is high, one side is low, The upper weight fits in there somewhere, along with the lower.
I think you get gain for about a quarter the rotation.
artv
The distinction between the crossbar and cams are clear as day in both the zoomed out higher quality view and the lower quality zoomed in view where it is very pixelated.

Yes, the white streak is the cam rotating - while the axis of the cam is oscillating back and forth on the end of the crossbar.

Video evidence shows a clear distinction between the crossbar and cam and that BOTH are moving, I respectfully disagree with the rest of your assessment that the cams are rotated by a pulley.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 06-08-2015, 11:11 AM
artoj's Avatar
artoj artoj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 170
Preliminary Drawings

Hi All,
Here are some of my last Skinner studies with my interpreted drawings, not finalized just preliminary layouts before actual build material and cost assessment. These should help some of those who have questions about some of the details. The top section is still incomplete in these drawings, the lower section with the arm and spinning weights have not been included.

I hope these partly finished detailed drawing can help other builders, regards Arto





__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 06-08-2015, 11:53 PM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
Artoj, If you look at post #610, it shows the bottom drive more clear.
If you remove the weights and the shafts, but not the cam, flip it over and attach the upper shafts to where the weights were attached , you now have the upper drive.
I think if you did have that crossbar (which is quite visible ) in the lower drive,swinging back and forth,
You would tear the machine apart.
Just my opinion.artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 06-21-2015, 06:37 AM
h2ocommuter's Avatar
h2ocommuter h2ocommuter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno Ca,
Posts: 147
Send a message via Skype™ to h2ocommuter
Great input abounds.

Nice studies you have done here.



__________________
 

Last edited by h2ocommuter; 06-21-2015 at 06:48 AM. Reason: Mute question.
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 06-21-2015, 10:32 PM
soundiceuk's Avatar
soundiceuk soundiceuk is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,261
I know this isn't Bessler but this research is critical to understanding the direction history took in modern understanding.



"What About the First Law of Thermodynamics?


The impossibility of energy for free is enshrined in one of the most fundamental and important laws of physics: the First Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change its form.

In 1847, a 26-year-old German medical doctor, Hermann Helmholtz, gave a presentation to the Physical Society of Berlin that would change the course of history. He presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible.

Axiom - A statement or proposition that is accepted as true without proof.

No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy. But a profound reversal of reasoning has occurred in the last century. Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;" while in any physics text book today one will find the statement that "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible."

Skeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible. "

Same applies with Skinner's technology.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 06-21-2015, 11:19 PM
soundiceuk's Avatar
soundiceuk soundiceuk is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,261
Apart from solar almost most generators use some form of leverage to turn an alternator.

Wind on wind tubines

Water on water wheels

Explosions on fuel engines

Steam on gas, coal, nuclear

Buoyancy on Rosch perhaps?

Skinner has just found a mechanical means to harness gravity and centrifugal force.

Bessler did something similar

Mikhail Dmitriyev something similar



I've got high hopes for this being the mechanical breakthrough this year.

It is the cleanest.

Gears and bearings become the new fuel.

I bet that they could be manufactured to last a lifetime!!!!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 06-22-2015, 01:32 AM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
I don't believe OU is possible , the way we measure will be changed.
Any form of energy is , just us figuring out how to use it.
It's there , we just have to learn how to use it.
I believe Skinner was sincere.
Why would you build such an elaborate device , just for a joke?
I don't think anyone will see any results , unless they build all 4 .
Still gathering parts.
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 06-22-2015, 04:58 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
laws of nature

That is a great point.

Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile is the best case for a literal perpetual motion machine that I've seen - Perpetuum Mobile

The Skinner machine and other over 1.0 cop machines are not perpetual motion, but the same skeptical mindsets apply to these systems.

If we look at Newton's Laws of Motion, the very first law actually states that the natural tendency is perpetual motion - An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless it is acted up by an external force. It doesn't UNLESS it is acted upon by an external force, not UNTIL it is acted upon by an external force. Therefore, an external force is not an absolute requirement. The tendency to stay in motion is the natural law of the universe, which is perpetual motion.

The 3rd law of motion states for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction but more accurately, forces are divided between two reference points.

In a machine like the Skinner machine, Veljko's machine, etc... there is a reaction in the mechanics of it's operation, but the force does not act in opposition at all - the reaction results in work continuing in the forward direction just like a martial artist who uses the opposing attacker's force to their own benefit without bucking against them.

This fact about using "reactive power" so to speak to produce real work in the forward intended direction is virtually ignored in all "free energy" fields and very few people seem to be interested in actually acknowledging the indisputable facts about it.

It's been spelled out here a few times, but is worth bringing up.

In the Veljko 2 stage oscillator, the hammer hits the anvil and the reaction causes the pendulum to move so that the hammer is lifted again to hit the anvil and produce work in the forward direction. The reaction or 3rd law of motion does not oppose the forward work, it assists it.

This can be done mechanically, electrically, mechanically, etc... using reactive power as an energy source - the Skinner Gravity Power Machine uses this as well.

And the law of conservation of energy, the root of the first law of thermodynamics had religious influence that only God can create something and therefore, energy is only transformed. So everyone pushing these "laws", which have been proven not to be laws at all are doing nothing more than pushing religious dogma without even knowing it and it never had any scientific basis.

The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert Mayer (1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the reader’s assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in the case of matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that time for energy—JM], only a transformation but never a creation takes place” (as quoted in King, 1962, p. 5).

Never a creation - why??? Because of the belief that only God creates. But that ignores the idea that there are other co-creation processes in nature that get assistance from something else.

Energy is never transformed into another form.

The natural process is always.

1. A formation of a potential difference between two reference points.

2. The potential energy available from this "dipole" is dissipated through resistances, which causes work and that is called energy or joule seconds.

3. The dissipation of this potential is directly back into the environment into an unorganized and non polarized form - symmetrical and homogenous.

4. If it is a closed system, this happens until all potential differences comes to equilibrium. But if it is an open system, a mechanism is in place to create another potential difference (regauge itself) so fresh NEW source potential can enter to do more work DELAYING entropy but not preventing it so over 1.0 COP can be accomplished. We only have to supply the minimal loss to get the full work of the system.

5. On each cycle, it is NEW potential energy that does new work and none of that potential energy is the same as what was used in an earlier cycle in the system.

So there is no conservation of energy, the energy is literally created out of "thin air" and is destroyed right back into "thin air" and this happens whether the system is open or closed. Just that an open system can delay entropy and become over 1.0 COP.

Energy is the action of the dissipation of potential. Energy is not a think. The potential is the real thing and in the case of a gravity powered motor, it is the rebounding aether that exerts a push on the mass of the atoms that make something up and that source gravitational potential is the thing.

Religious dogma, the source of the law of conservation of energy, is wrong and the observable and measurable scientific facts clearly show that energy synthesis and desynthesis is all that ever happens. It is a matter of people allowing themselves to believe things how they are instead of how they are being turned into something else.



Quote:
Originally Posted by soundiceuk View Post
I know this isn't Bessler but this research is critical to understanding the direction history took in modern understanding.



"What About the First Law of Thermodynamics?


The impossibility of energy for free is enshrined in one of the most fundamental and important laws of physics: the First Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change its form.

In 1847, a 26-year-old German medical doctor, Hermann Helmholtz, gave a presentation to the Physical Society of Berlin that would change the course of history. He presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible.

Axiom - A statement or proposition that is accepted as true without proof.

No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy. But a profound reversal of reasoning has occurred in the last century. Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;" while in any physics text book today one will find the statement that "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible."

Skeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible. "

Same applies with Skinner's technology.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 06-22-2015, 04:56 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
.... which causes work and that is called energy or joule seconds. ...
Hi Aaron,

The "joule second" is the unit of angular momentum in the SI units system. The "joule" is the SI unit for energy or work. Was your unit use intentional? Do you use a different system of units? If so, why?

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 06-22-2015, 05:57 PM
MagnaMoRo's Avatar
MagnaMoRo MagnaMoRo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: I live on Earth with some 7 Billion others of my kind.
Posts: 66
The Flaw

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
2. The potential energy available from this "dipole" is dissipated through resistances, which causes work and that is called energy or joule seconds.
"Impulse" is the release of energy, measured in Joules, which is dissipated into a resistance.

The measure of "Work" done is somewhat useless, because one can dissipate impulses of energy into a resisting object all day long, until they are blue in the face. Then some crackpot comes along and says "no 'work' was done", simply on the basis that the object into which the energy impulses were being dissipated didn't travel some distance!
__________________
 

Last edited by MagnaMoRo; 06-22-2015 at 06:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 06-22-2015, 08:15 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
potential and energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Aaron,

The "joule second" is the unit of angular momentum in the SI units system. The "joule" is the SI unit for energy or work. Was your unit use intentional? Do you use a different system of units? If so, why?

bi
A joule is supposed to be a watt second and I am adding the "second" for work to show it is not potential energy I'm talking about.

1 watt is a power rating, which is not work. It is volts x amps but if there is no time component, it is just power. 1 watt second is supposed to be the same as 1 joule but looking at the conventional definitions, conventional science does not even know the real difference between energy and potential and they have swapped their meanings. And how the joule was derived to begin with was erroneous so all the basic systems of dimensions are screwed up to begin with.

A watt is a power rating, which is not energy. A watt is also defined as a joule per second. A joule per second is a power rating according to the conventional definitions.

A joule second is one joule over 1 second - that measures angular momentum OR action, which is work or energy.

Here is an example of how ridiculous the convential definitions are: Action is defined as -The action of a system has the dimensions of energy integrated over time; it is therefore measured in joule-seconds.

It's stupid because if there is no time, then there is no energy. Energy is work and that is potential energy actually being dissipated through resistances. Without time, it is potential and is not energy. So the definition of action is energy over time, which is like a redundant oxymoron in a way. Action simply is energy because time is already integrated in energy. The conventional definition of action is like saying 1 watt second over time. It's beyond ridiculous.

Potential or source potential or gravitational potential is the REAL substance and when that potential is dissipated through resistances to a lower potential, the activity that the potential undergoes while being dissipated IS energy or work. Energy is not a thing, potential is. Energy is what potential experiences.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 06-22-2015, 08:34 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
movement not required for work to be done

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaMoRo View Post
"Impulse" is the release of energy, measured in Joules, which is dissipated into a resistance.

The measure of "Work" done is somewhat useless, because one can dissipate impulses of energy into a resisting object all day long, until they are blue in the face. Then some crackpot comes along and says "no 'work' was done", simply on the basis that the object into which the energy impulses were being dissipated didn't travel some distance!
Impulse only means that the TIME component for the dissipation of a certain amount of potential is in a very small period of time - that is why it is called an impulse. Impulse is not some arbitrary "release of energy".

Energy is not dissipated into a resistance. Potential is what is dissipated into a resistance and the ACTION of that dissipation is called energy or work because heat or some other action results. You are speaking of energy as if it is the thing, but potential is the thing or noun properly. The classical use of potential as an abstract is false and the use of energy as a noun is false.

Potential or source potential is the aether, which imparts an electrostatic like push on the proton of the mass. When this resistance is caused, we say that is energy (in gravitational/mechanical systems). But potential is the thing and energy is the activity that the potential undergoes. The gravitational potential is 100% identical to the aether and is also the thing - not an abstract. Energy is not dissipated - energy is the activity of potential being dissipated from one state of polarization or organization to a less polarized or less organized state.

The measure of work done is not useless - you are ignoring the basic facts. Again, you don't "dissipate impulses of energy" - you dissipate organized potential in impulses - if work is done, then we say there is energy.

Anyway, work done does not only mean an object moves. I can discharge capacitors in IMPULSES to a battery all day long until I'm blue in the face and the battery didn't move one inch. However, I guarantee you that plenty of work was done - it's really common sense.

If you take an anvil and strike it with a hammer over and over, the anvil doesn't have to move. Heat is produced and that is work or energy whether you like it or not.

Your message is extremely convoluted. You are making a case that it is useless to measure work and your argument for that is because a crackpot will come along and say work was not done - that makes it useless? You're the one who is arguing that the measurement of work can be useless then say the crackpot is the one arguing that work is not done and that is why it is useless. You are calling yourself a crackpot since you are the one making a the very crackpot argument according to your own post.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 06-22-2015, 10:46 PM
MagnaMoRo's Avatar
MagnaMoRo MagnaMoRo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: I live on Earth with some 7 Billion others of my kind.
Posts: 66
Aaron,

I said it was "somewhat useless" to only consider the "work done" as a determination of the energy input. And I gave an example why.

By the way, impulse does not imply a "very small period of time" as you indicate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Impulse only means that the TIME component for the dissipation of a certain amount of potential is in a very small period of time - that is why it is called an impulse. Impulse is not some arbitrary "release of energy".
"Impulse" (symbolized by J or Imp) is the integral of a force, F, over the time interval, t, for which it acts. ANY GIVEN TIME INTERVAL!

Here is the expression for impulse:



So without considering some certain amount of time, there one cannot even consider force.

In physics, a force is said to do work if, when acting on a body, there is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
If you take an anvil and strike it with a hammer over and over, the anvil doesn't have to move. Heat is produced and that is work or energy whether you like it or not.
Yes! And what I was saying is that the "crackpot" is the one who does not take this "heat" into consideration, but only the displacement of the object that has been subjected to the impulse. For it may not have moved!

A car can push against a large tree for an hour.
During that time:
The car exerts an impulse on the tree.
The tree exerts a counter impulse on the car.
The car's motor gets heated.
The tree's temperature does not increase!
The man only looks at the tree and and says. "No 'work' was done!" Why? Because, the tree didn't move.

That's my point.

So, then, to consider the actual work done one must consider more than the displacement of the tree alone.

Since this topic as about gravity power, here is an interesting question then.
During any given period of time, from what ultimate source is the impulse coming from that keeps the water in the bottom of your glass while it sits on the table?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 06-23-2015, 03:15 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
That is a great point.

Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile is the best case for a literal perpetual motion machine that I've seen - Perpetuum Mobile

And the law of conservation of energy, the root of the first law of thermodynamics had religious influence that only God can create something and therefore, energy is only transformed. So everyone pushing these "laws", which have been proven not to be laws at all are doing nothing more than pushing religious dogma without even knowing it and it never had any scientific basis.



Never a creation - why??? Because of the belief that only God creates. But that ignores the idea that there are other co-creation processes in nature that get assistance from something else.
Thanks so much Aaron

I really enjoy your delivery of putting terms into there proper places.

This rubbish the mainstream injections into the classroom is at best

hypocritical. THEY use the term gOd loosely, only when it is

convenient to use as some sort of religious trigger to lever the

proper response from the puppet-ed populous.

THEIR gOd is confused to say the least.

And when that doesn't work THEY pull out THEIR Darwin

horse sheet

Beyond that I am content to listen and learn from you

and even though I can't put this all down in writing the

way you have it, I know it is right on!!!!!! I have read

many deep books from mathematics to physics and to tell

you quite frankly, they put me to sleep with endless

non-analytical cue triggers that were to make me into

some kind of thoughtless drone who must hang on THEIR

every word for no good reasons.

You Sir have excellent reasoning abilities.

Indeed this is a spiritual matter.
__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 06-23-2015 at 03:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 06-23-2015, 06:11 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
gravitational potential - what is it?

If you want to talk about what is meaningless, it is conventional explanations.

The entire point of having an IMPULSE is to discharge x amount of potential energy is a very short period of time. This is the essence of much of Tesla's work and the small time compressed component is all important.

If you take a hammer and tap on a window with x amount of work and the window does not break, work was still done in heat, etc... If we do that 10 times in a row, the window still will not break. We have discharged 10x worth of work over 10 seconds lets say and the window does not break.

However, if we take all 10 taps worth of work and exert it in one single tap, then we are still dissipating the same amount of energy, but we dissipate it all in 1/10th of the time so we have a 10 times POWER INCREASE - not energy gain but POWER GAIN and that will crumble the window to smithereens. That is the entire point of what an IMPULSE is and it is irrelevant what the conventional textbook definition of impulse is because it is wrong and I will side with Tesla on this point.

Tesla was accomplishing many of his feats with POWER and not energy but most people do not comprehend this fact.

IMPULSE is the power increase and the crackpot will say, it is still the same amount of energy that was dissiptated so there is no difference compared to dissipating the same potential over a longer period of time. But those crackpots that believe that are ignorant because x energy dissipated over a longer time will NOT accomplish what x energy over a shorter time will do. When we increase the power by dissipating potential in a much shorter period of time, that is the entire point of what IMPULSE is supposed to be.

With my plasma ignition, there is not that many joules of potential energy in a common CDI/MSD. Maybe a 500v cap at 1-2 mfd. Conventionally discharging this cap into the primary of a coil will exhibit a certain amount of energy and will give just a larger spark - still a normal spark but larger. But with my ignition circuit, I can cause that cap to discharge under a negative resistance condition and instead of it discharging into a positive resistance and slowing down it's discharge, I can make it discharge by having the negative resistance suck the potential out of the cap greatly accelerating the time that it discharges. The power can be in the megawatt range for one discharge for a few milliseconds and it will accomplish WAY MORE than the same cap discharged in the normal way. That is what IMPULSE means and the conventional definitions used by conventional science are irrelevant.

This discharge is way more advanced that what would happen with a room temperature super conductor because not only is there no resistance, there is negative resistance and room temperature super conductors cannot accomplish that. When you are dealing with this, you are working with very unconventional discharges that are the epitome of IMPULSE technology and conventional definitions of impulse are not able to operate within this jurisdiction and do not do them justice.

I would suggest you read and study Secrets of Cold War Technology by Jerry Vassilatos. There are technical errors in that book, but the principles are accurate and sound. You will learn the proper use of what IMPULSE is intended for. Bedini, Lindemann, Dollard, you name it are in agreement that this book is valuable to understanding many of Tesla's principles with the acknowledgement of some technical errors, but it is a must read.

You can consider Force without time. Force without time is like watts (power) without seconds. It is like a power reading but is not energy. When you have Force x Distance, then you have work because inside of distance, time is implied.

You are also talking about textbook definitions for the sake of examples. If the body does not move, then no work is done. That is like saying a crystalline solar panel is 20% efficient but the sticker on the solar panel is based on 100% bright direct light and does not take real work conditions into effect. It is an example and that is it.

Of course the heat is work and you recognize that, but what is important is that in efficiency ratings for different systems, only the INTENDED work done is what is accounted for and the rest is considered waste. But if you add the waste, which is real work to the intended work, it is always 100% efficient.

I understand your "bulletpoints" on the car pushing on a tree, but the temperature of the tree does increase. At the point that the car contacts the tree and exerts a force, work is being done - heat work and that point will be hotter than the rest of the tree.

To answer your question of what keeps water in the bottom of a glass, but I will not agree it is an impulse is this...

The Earth has mass, which displaces the ambient/static/homogenous/unpolarized aether. As that aether is displaced, it rebounds back in the direction that it was displaced form - towards the center of the mass. If you put a ball in a tub of water and the water is displaced, the water will push back on the ball equally on all sides (if the water is not under gravitational influences). Even with gravity, the water is still trying to move towards equilibrium to move into the location of the ball.

As the aether rebounds to the center of the Earth, it exerts an electrostatic type of push on the protons of the atoms that make up the mass of the Earth and everything on it.

As the aether pushes on the mass of the objects on the Earth, it is pushing them in the direction of the center of the mass that displaced the aether to begin with, which means that gravity is pushing the mass of the objects towards the ground. Gravity is a push - it is not a pull. The water in the glass is composed of hydrogen and oxygen and whatever minerals are in there. The aether rebounding pushes on the mass of the atoms that make up the water and hold it on the bottom of the glass.

If we have a 1 cubic foot of lead and 1 cubic food of wood, the lead is very tightly spaced at the atomic level and the wood is very spacious comparatively speaking. If we lift up the 1 cubic foot of lead, there is much more mass packed tightly for the aether to push on and it will appear to be much more heavy. If we pick up the 1 cubic foot of wood, there is more space at the atomic level so there is less protons for the aether to exert a push on so we can lift it up and have less resistance so it feels lighter.

If we have a fishing net with 1 inch square mesh and have it in a river, the river will move through it with not much resistance. If we have a net with 1 mm square spacing, the water will push against it quite a bit more with more resistance. That is the same thing as what gravitational aetheric source potential is doing to the mass that it is pushing on as it rebounds dynamically as it moves in the direction of the center of the mass - middle of the Earth.

As the aether moves to the center of the Earth and the "gravity" is stronger, transformations occur that create electrons, etc... and these electrons then rise up to the surface of the Earth like Artesian water - the primary source of the high electron content on the surface of the Earth. This is why the aether constantly is in movement towards the center of the Earth and does not just stop and become static. If it was static, there would be no gravitational push since everything would be in equilibrium.

This gravitational potential IS the aether moving down towards us and into the Earth and IS what the potential is to push on mass to hold it down. That is the potential, which is the THING or NOUN. When an object is at a height, MGH will show how much potential energy is available to the object - NOT how much is stored in the object.

There is no such thing as storing potential energy. There is only a dipole, which is the object at a height. When the object is released, the gravitational potential (aether) will push it down and there is no work unless that object encounters a resistance and then heat is created. That resistance is the dissipation of that aetheric gravitational potential and we call that energy.








Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaMoRo View Post
Aaron,

I said it was "somewhat useless" to only consider the "work done" as a determination of the energy input. And I gave an example why.

By the way, impulse does not imply a "very small period of time" as you indicate.



"Impulse" (symbolized by J or Imp) is the integral of a force, F, over the time interval, t, for which it acts. ANY GIVEN TIME INTERVAL!

Here is the expression for impulse:



So without considering some certain amount of time, there one cannot even consider force.

In physics, a force is said to do work if, when acting on a body, there is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force.



Yes! And what I was saying is that the "crackpot" is the one who does not take this "heat" into consideration, but only the displacement of the object that has been subjected to the impulse. For it may not have moved!

A car can push against a large tree for an hour.
During that time:
The car exerts an impulse on the tree.
The tree exerts a counter impulse on the car.
The car's motor gets heated.
The tree's temperature does not increase!
The man only looks at the tree and and says. "No 'work' was done!" Why? Because, the tree didn't move.

That's my point.

So, then, to consider the actual work done one must consider more than the displacement of the tree alone.

Since this topic as about gravity power, here is an interesting question then.
During any given period of time, from what ultimate source is the impulse coming from that keeps the water in the bottom of your glass while it sits on the table?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 06-23-2015, 02:20 PM
MagnaMoRo's Avatar
MagnaMoRo MagnaMoRo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: I live on Earth with some 7 Billion others of my kind.
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
...
I do not presume to know or understand but very little of what there must be to know within our universe. However, what I do realize is that some standards must be established for ideas to be properly conveyed. The definition of impulse is one of those required establishments. It has to be, that impulse, in the context in which we are discussing, referees to the study of the averaged force vectors during a given sample of time. Sure force vectors may add up differently during any other smaller or greater sample of time, but within the given sample of time, we are studying the average of those available force vectors.

If everyone has a different context or definition for what impulse means. Then we can't use that word to convey our understanding.

The standard definition is easily understandable. I didn't make it up. But, it is there for me to understand and use.

IMPULSE


As regards what you have presented about "gravity", I found it to be a very interesting hypothesis (because I myself do not profess to know).

If however, as you have stated, gravity is caused by the creation of electrons, etc..." AS the source of aether movement towards the center of the Earth (or, I might add, any other mass), then the moon, a small rock, or in fact any mass would have to prove to be a source of continuous electron or some other mass emission so as to also produce this effect as well. True?

MagnaMoRo
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 06-23-2015, 09:30 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaMoRo View Post
If everyone has a different context or definition for what impulse means. Then we can't use that word to convey our understanding.

The standard definition is easily understandable. I didn't make it up. But, it is there for me to understand and use.

IMPULSE


As regards what you have presented about "gravity", I found it to be a very interesting hypothesis (because I myself do not profess to know).

If however, as you have stated, gravity is caused by the creation of electrons, etc..." AS the source of aether movement towards the center of the Earth (or, I might add, any other mass), then the moon, a small rock, or in fact any mass would have to prove to be a source of continuous electron or some other mass emission so as to also produce this effect as well. True?

MagnaMoRo
We can use any word to mean anything we want it to mean if a definition is provided and I presented the definition of Impulse that I am using.

Here is an image showing what an impulse is and is not in the Tesla type of context and my definition is the same as the physics definition and the common language definition - the definition you present looses the essence of the very meaning of Impulse, which is common in many of the scientific definitions:



The left as labeled is how a cap will normally discharge or close enough and the right is how the cap discharge is accelerated in a small period of time since it literally is "sucked out" under a negative resistance. The one on the left is over a larger period of time but is not considered an Impulse. The one on the left has the dissipation averaged out over a long period of time. The one on the right is a straight line with almost no width or time component to it - that is an Impulse.

Impulse is important to the Skinner machine and I've spelled it out earlier in this thread. I'll mention it again.

But first, here are the definitions that agree with what I am saying, which are very standard dictionary definitions:

A sudden wish or urge that prompts an unpremeditated act or feeling; an abrupt inclination:

The above definition carries the essence of what Impulse means, which is sudden and abrupt - that means small time component.

Electronics - A surge of electrical power in one direction.

The electronics definition has the same essence, which is SURGE. That is an instantaneous event, which is also a small time component. Also, a transient spike - the perfect embodiment of an impulse.

(General Physics) physics
a. the product of the average magnitude of a force acting on a body and the time for which it acts
b. the change in the momentum of a body as a result of a force acting upon it for a short period of time


And that physics definition, which you left out of your post, is that it is an event that happens in a short period of time just like I said. I disagree with your claim that the meaning of Impulse applies to events regardless of the time component when it is right there in 3 definitions that Impulse is a SUDDEN, ABRUPT, SURGE event that happens in a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

In the Skinner machine, the lower shaft is rotated in an elliptical orbit. At each end of the ellipse, the lower weight is circling around from it's momentum goes around the outer edge and comes back in the opposite direction and at that point, the lower shaft is moved back in phase with that lower weight. That is an Impulse that has a tremendous increase in power at the shaft.

The claim before that the lower weight being kicked back in this orbit will cause too much strain on the machine, etc... lacks an understanding that flicking the shaft back in the opposite direction does not buck against the movement of the lower weight and the lower weight does most of the work by itself with small assistance from the shaft.

We go back to the standard physics definition: the change in the momentum of a body as a result of a force acting upon it for a short period of time

The lower weight has an instant change in the momentum by moving in the opposite direction but most of that change in the direction of that momentum is from the lower weight spinning out at the edge of the ellipse in that direction, then it spins around and carries it in an impulse in the opposite direction.The Skinner machine is an impulse machine.

What I presented about gravity is not a hypothesis, it is a theory. Not only is it a theory - it accounts for what standard Einstein nonsense cannot. Einstein deals with magic and mysticism and deals with erroneous ideas about storing potential, which does not happen. Potential is dissipated right back to the environment. If a new potential difference is created, then NEW potential comes in. Nothing was conserved and nothing was stored.

If you lift a weight, force x distance will show you how many joules of energy, which is real work, that was dissipated to lift that weight. At the peak of the lift, 100% of all energy is dissipated and there is no potential to "store" in the object. All that happened is that the object is now at a new reference point in relation to the ground or starting point and mgh or mass x gravity x height will show how much potential energy gravitational potential will contribute when the object is released. MGH is not how much potential is stored, but how much will be available freely from gravitational potential at a future time. When the object is released, gravitational potential pushes on the object and pushes it back down. Work is not done on the fall except for an insignificant amount of air resistance and almost all work is done when the ball impacts the ground. That work/heat done is equivalent in the amount of work that was used to lift it to begin with.
The idea that we got out what we put in is just plain ridiculous. What we got out of the energy we expended to lift the object is the lift of the ball in and of itself. We used x joules of energy to lift the object and Einsteinian brainwash will say that we have now stored x joules of potential energy in the object - what?? After we already used it up to lift the object to begin with?

The indisputable and mathematically provable law of nature is that nature gives us a freebie, at minimum, for each unit of work we expend. So, there is always 2x work done compared to what we expend. This is related to the misunderstood idea about equal and opposite reaction. So we can have the free potential available from nature counter and oppose and buck against our input work - or, we can use this reactive energy in novel ways so that it doesn't oppose what we do because we can have the reaction happen so that it is in phase with our own work so the forward work done is more than what we contributed. This is exactly what is happening in the Skinner machine.

The false Einstenian paradigm hides these facts by maintaining that each object is separate from every other object because that way, it is believable that potential is stored. This prevents people from seeing the truth that the potential for more work to be done is actually free gravitational potential that can come into a system and do more work.

The 2x rule applies to closed systems and can be more in open systems that constantly regauge or constantly establish new potential differences in the system. That does not prevent full entropy, it delays it so total work done is way more than what we have to put in.

In the mechanical systems such as the Skinner machine - it is not an up/down relationship with gravity - it is an horizontal/elliptical one with an Impulse. The Impulse at the end carries the weight up to the narrow part of the ellipse where it is the highest so going against gravity there is free with plenty of excess and then after the midpoint, that weight not only has the momentum to carry it to the opposite end of the ellipse, after the midpoint, new, fresh and free gravitational potential enters the system right there to add it's potential to the push of that object, which helps to accelerate it.

These basic gravitational principles are easily studied with elementary school math and junior high school equations. And because it accounts for what magical potential storage ideas cannot, the conventional theories are no longer theories. They are not even relegated to a hypothesis. They simply need to be chucked in to the garbage bin because they are simply wrong.

Space does not curve - space is not space filled with aether, space is the aether. If there is no aether, there is no space. And it is space, which is displaced by mass - space is not curved around the mass. That is one of the biggest hoaxes of the last century. If you have large objects out in "space" - they displace the aether symmetrically around themselves - assuming the mass is distributed equally around the center in all directions - for the sake of example. If you have 2 large objects near each other, the sides facing each other will have that displaced aether SPLIT and DIVIDED between each object. That means there is not a situation of ASSYMETRY on each object. The strongest push is from the outside of each object with the weakest push at the points that are close to each other since the aether there is divided between the mass proportionately. What happens is that the aether pushes the objects together and that is what gravitational attraction is. No space is curved or bent. It is displaced with different levels of density depending on the mass that displaces it.

The entire gravitational model presented can account for all of these effects without buying into magical brainwashing. Conventional cynics from conventional science always claim that anything other than the norm is crackpot science, etc... but the irony is that they are the ones who are the real crackpots all this time and they are the ones who have been buying into magical thinking all along.
Gravity is a source of potential that can do real work and the Skinner machine is one of the most elegant examples of this fact that is self-evident for anyone who is looking at it for what it is and not what conventional pixie dust in the eyes tells us.
The creation of the electrons I believe is something that Tesla said - can't find the reference right now, but I think he is the one that mentioned the artesian water analogy. I don't know if it is true, but it does not change the basic operating principles that aether is the source of gravitational potential caused by masses displacement of the aether. Perhaps it is something else, but the point is that the aether is moving dynamically to where it is displaced. How does it keep moving dynamically? I don't know but we can measure work done from it that does not come from us. That in and of itself invalidates all the Einsteinian nonsense.

There have been experiments that rotating spheres pulls the aether towards it. DePalma and other people's work along these lines are important to study. The moon also rotates - once per 24 hours around Earth's axis of rotation. In post 3, I have a link to the pdf about Tesla's article on the Moon's Rotation: Jim Murray's Mechanical Amplifier

The Skinner Machine does use some of these principles. I'm mentioned it earlier on but I don't think anyone is interested.

Anyway, with gravity, that is the primary effect. The effects are externally sourced from the mass and are not intrinsic to the mass itself. There is no e=mc2 because there is no energy to mass. There is only mass aether interactions and all energy exhibited, inertia, etc... is all imparted into the mass from the aether.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 06-24-2015 at 05:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 06-24-2015, 12:25 AM
soundiceuk's Avatar
soundiceuk soundiceuk is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,261
I think with a lot of these mechanical amplifiers there is a key that we are missing.

The reason many so called working mechanical inventions never get replicated into a working device.

It is do to with the angular velocity.

If the mass of the components doesn't give the needed angular velocity to overcome the friction of bearings and wind resistance. The device will never enter a band where amplified energy can be tapped.

The mass of the components is critical and this is because the impulse needs to be delivered in a short period of time.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 06-24-2015, 12:34 AM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
Hi Sound, What happens when you take a perfectly balanced flywheel ,and add a weight to the perimeter ?, You get Matts' bouncer. I think he said 60deg.
It always seems to be around ~50.

I think Skinner split it up .
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1939, 1939 gravity power, energy, force, free energy, gravity, gravity power, lift, overunity, power, weight, william f skinner, william skinner, skinner, william

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers