anything that works?

[velacreations]

yeah, I have been told a solar panel is one that works, as well. So, if I have a choice about stringing several hundred feet of copper to harvest a few microwatts vs putting up a solar panel to harvest a 100 watts, which one do I choose???

Show me a measurement of a usable quantity, Duncan. Have you replicated Moray's devices and produced the claimed power? If so, please share.

Can we make a static electricity motor? Sure. Can we make it perform useful work? that is the real question.

So we hear of how many ways we can all get loads of free energy, except "loads" means microwatts, and to get it means $$$.

That is why the question had to become "what mechanisms or devices are the most efficient at converting environmental energy into electricity in a usable quantity"?

Now, you seem to want to focus on semantics, rather than show us your demonstrations of you producing watts (usable quantity). Why do you mock me, instead of posting your replications with measurements? I want to see your replicated Moray device, come on, man!

This thread is not for discussing politics or mocking anyone, Duncan. I'd appreciate it if you could focus on showing demonstrated devices with proper measurements.

Observation and hearsay without measurement is bad science.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Oh Duncan

Oh Duncan, don't kill him before he has at least tried some other things, anyone frying tonight

Mike

[Duncan]

so, maybe the question needs to be, what mechanisms or devices are the most efficient at converting environmental energy into electricity in a usable quantity?

George Carlin on "the American Dream" - YouTubewith the help of a video, you can help us to help you!

[Aaron]

over 1.0 cop - all over the place

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Wind, hydro, and solar would fit this description, as I am not the one doing the input.

Those do qualify as legit free energy over 1.0 cop machines.

But I am referring to ones that we do have to input work to get them going.

The Veljko 2 state mechanical oscillator for example amplifies the energy about 5 times. Just add the work input on the small pendulum and then do the work calculations on the big hammer and you see that way more work is being produced than what it takes to swing the little pendulum.

There really are quite a few devices in Energetic Forum and Energy Science Forum that operating within these parameters and are true free energy over 1.0 cop technologies.

[chainmailleman]

The majority of Ham operators dispute that any useful power can be harvested.

I do not share that conclusion.

Most HAM operators only know of transverse electro-magnetic waves. These waves are unsuitable for any kind of power transmission.

KJ6GOT

[velacreations]

so, maybe the question needs to be, what mechanisms or devices are the most efficient at converting environmental energy into electricity in a usable quantity?

[velacreations]

Anyway, your first sentence above is missing the proper distinction. You're not going to see anything that is giving you more energy out than goes in. However, what you will find are devices that give you more energy out than what YOU have to input - meaning you are using a small amount of input to leverage free environmental input. You CAN have more out than YOU put in but you're not going to have more out than the total input. This is not semantics - this is just the way it is.

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Wind, hydro, and solar would fit this description, as I am not the one doing the input.

[Aaron]

proper distinctions needed

My definition of OU, as it relates here, is getting more energy out of a system/device/machine than is put into the system/device/machine.

I know that is not an official definition, and I might be using the wrong terminology, but I'm basically asking if we have any energy devices that are more than 100% efficient.

You have to change the distinction of what you're looking for because what you are asking has nothing to do with real "free energy" technologies.

As Duncan said, he doesn't believe in "overunity" but does believe in over 1.0 COP. For practical purposes, we know what is intended by the use of the word overunity even though you can't have more than everything so overunity is an oxymoron. But point is, the word overunity has become synonymous with meaning over 1.0 COP - at least for those that do know the distinctions.

Anyway, your first sentence above is missing the proper distinction. You're not going to see anything that is giving you more energy out than goes in. However, what you will find are devices that give you more energy out than what YOU have to input - meaning you are using a small amount of input to leverage free environmental input. You CAN have more out than YOU put in but you're not going to have more out than the total input. This is not semantics - this is just the way it is.

Your second sentence is also not using a valid distinction. You're not going to see over 100% efficient. However, you WILL see devices that are 100% efficient or less, but are able to output more than YOU have to input, meaning it is over 1.0 COP. Efficiency is total out compared to total in. COP is total out compared only to what we had to pay for not including free environmental input.

Most people cannot find anything that is over 1.0 COP because they're looking for something magical that doesn't exist and do not know the distinctions so therefore will never be able to see that over 1.0 COP systems are all over the place. Every natural system is over 1.0 COP and classical 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics DO NOT APPLY to any natural system.

Your refrigerator is producing more work in measurable joules of energy than you pay for at the wall. Heat moves for free. There you go - a legitimate free energy machine. Under 100% efficient, but giving you 200~250% net gain in work compared to what you draw from the wall in heat movement.

Veljko 2 state mechanical oscillator - COP 5.0, that is under 100% efficient but is a 500% net gain in mechanical work done compared to the small amount needed to swing the little pendulum.

I posted the numbers to 160% net gain in work from the recovery battery compared to what left the input battery on a small Bedini SSG in the other forum. And that doesn't even include the mechanical work on the wheel. That is under 100% efficient but is producing more than what I have provided.

The list goes on...

It isn't a matter of whether there are devices posted here or elsewhere that are "overunity" - it is a matter of whether someone can recognize what it is when they see one - and the answer is usually no for the average person. They don't know what they don't know (unconscious incompetence) so they judge it based on that, which is completely ridiculous.

[velacreations]

Dear Velacreations,

I know what you mean about this one. It took me years to figure out why my early attempts failed. This circuit, straight out of Tesla's Radiant Energy patents, collects a "quality" of electricity that is quite different than the kind you are used to. It's more like a dynamic form of static electricity. Its relationship to the environment is quite active, and any aggregation of the charge tends to leak back to the environment quickly, if allowed.

The TRICK for making it work is what I call the "insulation protocol". The elevated wire is best if it is bare. It must be suspended on glass insulators, like old soda bottles. Even the outside "shiny surface" of a PVC pipe will discharge the energy. The capacitor must be insulated to 10kv, with very low leakage. The elevated wire coming into the capacitor must not touch anything except the air, the glass insulators and the capacitor connection. Even the moisture in a wooden base will discharge the energy. The ground connection must be a significant copper bar sunk into the ground a couple of feet.

Set the spark gap to about .015" to keep the voltages down and use a full-wave bridge instead of a single diode.

The length of the elevated wire, its height off the ground, and the local weather conditions will determine the amount of energy available at any given time. Conditions with an overcast sky, still air and high humidity work the worst. Sunny, low humidity conditions work well, but certain foggy conditions with a slight breeze, or even cold, light snow fall, can produce ferocious outputs. People can get hurt under these circumstances, so a second, safety spark-gap directly to ground, is usually installed.

Thank you, Peter. What sort of power have you harvested from a system like this?

The "insulation protocol" contradicts many of the descriptions of this device, that bare wires will not work (electret). I will try your method immediately, and post the results.

Any Ham Radio operator can verify this criteria.

The majority of Ham operators dispute that any useful power can be harvested.

[velacreations]

Free electricity - YouTube

so, by that reasoning, solar energy is free energy, too, right? I mean, at these power levels (microwatt), it is quite possible that you are picking up power from radio towers, cell phone towers, etc.

[Peter Lindemann]

Insulation Protocol

ok, I was right in my assumption, this is the same information that is regularly passed around, yet very few have made a viable replication of. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a replication that produced more than 1 watt.

So, does this work? Have you tried it, tested it, measured it?

I have tested a few variations of this concept, using long stretches of coax, big polished aluminum plates, etc, and none of them charged a battery. In fact, very few even produced measurable energy. I wasn't able to get it to work. What's the trick for making it work?

Dear Velacreations,

I know what you mean about this one. It took me years to figure out why my early attempts failed. This circuit, straight out of Tesla's Radiant Energy patents, collects a "quality" of electricity that is quite different than the kind you are used to. It's more like a dynamic form of static electricity. Its relationship to the environment is quite active, and any aggregation of the charge tends to leak back to the environment quickly, if allowed.

The TRICK for making it work is what I call the "insulation protocol". The elevated wire is best if it is bare. It must be suspended on glass insulators, like old soda bottles. Even the outside "shiny surface" of a PVC pipe will discharge the energy. The capacitor must be insulated to 10kv, with very low leakage. The elevated wire coming into the capacitor must not touch anything except the air, the glass insulators and the capacitor connection. Even the moisture in a wooden base will discharge the energy. The ground connection must be a significant copper bar sunk into the ground a couple of feet.

Set the spark gap to about .015" to keep the voltages down and use a full-wave bridge instead of a single diode.

The length of the elevated wire, its height off the ground, and the local weather conditions will determine the amount of energy available at any given time. Conditions with an overcast sky, still air and high humidity work the worst. Sunny, low humidity conditions work well, but certain foggy conditions with a slight breeze, or even cold, light snow fall, can produce ferocious outputs. People can get hurt under these circumstances, so a second, safety spark-gap directly to ground, is usually installed.

So, that is the TRICK, as you have asked for it. Any Ham Radio operator can verify this criteria.

Best regards,
Peter

[Duncan]

I cant make it easier than this!

ok, I was right in my assumption, this is the same information that is regularly passed around, yet very few have made a viable replication of. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a replication that produced more than 1 watt.

So, does this work? Have you tried it, tested it, measured it?

I have tested a few variations of this concept, using long stretches of coax, big polished aluminum plates, etc, and none of them charged a battery. In fact, very few even produced measurable energy. I wasn't able to get it to work. What's the trick for making it work?

Free electricity - YouTube

[velacreations]

http://www4.zetatalk.com/docs/Batter...arger_2006.pdf
of course if you want to drive cars and houses with it you'll have to learn what your actually doing and how to improve it . There's about 10 years of E.P.Dollards work can help you.
In the mean time you just asked for a system that works . for starting the thread that seems to be the end of it. QED

ok, I was right in my assumption, this is the same information that is regularly passed around, yet very few have made a viable replication of. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a replication that produced more than 1 watt.

So, does this work? Have you tried it, tested it, measured it?

I have tested a few variations of this concept, using long stretches of coax, big polished aluminum plates, etc, and none of them charged a battery. In fact, very few even produced measurable energy. I wasn't able to get it to work. What's the trick for making it work?

[velacreations]

see, here's the problem I am seeing. People talk about free energy being possible, and then the conversation changes to a conspiracy keeping it quiet. I ignore the conspiracy aspect, because that can't be proven. It can only be discussed, proposed, alluded to, etc. But, it still doesn't get us any closer to where we want to be.

Conspiracies are distractions.

But we have thousands upon thousands of pages on this forum of devices, theories, tests, etc. The question is not "is free energy possible?" The Question is "Do we have anything that works?"

If something is working, we should be able to replicate it. Then, we can test it, measure it, and publish our results on these forums.

So, where should we put our efforts, where should our focus lie?

[velacreations]

http://www4.zetatalk.com/docs/Batter...arger_2006.pdf
of course if you want to drive cars and houses with it you'll have to learn what your actually doing and how to improve it . There's about 10 years of E.P.Dollards work can help you.
In the mean time you just asked for a system that works . for starting the thread that seems to be the end of it. QED

Has it been successfully replicated? I will read over that document, but I suspect is is very much like several antennae systems I have seen, none of which were able to be replicated to produce the power advertised.