ZERO INPUT, 10 degrees thermal output...Yes,...genuine free energy

[RAMSET]

A good path...

Have you tested the experiment with calibrated emissivity "dots" (small sticky circles of known emissivity)? Otherwise the results are invalid, thermal imagers will give erroneous readings if you do not know the emissivity of the material, and that value DOES change as a function of temperature. Read the Rossi E-CAT 3rd-part tests, they cover the issue in depth.

Knowing how to use your test equipment (and the inherent limitations of them) is important if one wants to collect accurate and reliable data...

To avoid errors with thermal imaging, use a calorimetry chamber (has two chambers, one electrically heated by a temp. controlled servo to the same temp of the other chamber and reads off watts needed to maintain the same temp as the other chamber). Or for the most basic, use a very well insulated chamber of known volume and insert a thermal probe into it to measure the temperature rise of the air when the experiment is placed inside. You may want to calculate the thermal time constant and thermal impedance of the chamber to determine heating power.

Aside from experimental pitfalls, this is an interesting experiment.

Ken
It would be good to have a third party validation of this claim.
I can get this into hands with all necessary equipment and protocols
so as to give you a certified claim?

would you consider shipping this simple set up to us ?
we would cover all costs and give you a write up and full report at no cost
as well as return all to you in same condition?

respectfully
Chet

[Dog-One]

Ken,

I have been studying the Morin videos, specifically the negative temperature drop shown.

What I suspect you will find with your experiment is that a thermocouple attached to the bismuth will not show any change from ambient. Let me explain...

An IR meter takes a comparison between the target location and the reference point (the handheld device) which is some distance apart. If your demonstration is creating a field extending away from the bismuth, as I would expect it is, a thermocouple having the target and source in close proximity is not going to register the difference, but an IR meter will because now the target and the reference is clearly within different gradients of the field.

You are all about fields Ken, so I'm sure you can back me up on this hypothesis if it is indeed correct and testable.

[RAMSET]

As Upgradd mentioned

DogOne
Yes as mentioned a calorimetry chamber with a control and perhaps a few other methods with controls would cover all the bases.
very intriguing indeed,I hope Ken opts for the offer?

thx

Chet

[spacecase0]

I have magnets, bismuth, and thermoelectric chips,
I might have lost the bismuth to the point of having to buy it again,
will have to try and reproduce this and post results,
looking for the bismuth...

[upgradd]

Dog-One, not to be pedantic, but a "negative temperature drop" would imply that the temperature has increased. Furthermore, unless your are implying a delta reading against some reference, say ambient air, you realistically can't have a negative temperature. Ultimately temperature, as according to the molecular theory of gases (using the Kelvin scale), is an absolute quantity having no positive or negative values. With that in mind, and using basic concepts of chemistry, to cause cooling your material or object must undergo an endothermic change or process, whereby the thermodynamic state of the object transitions from a state of lower energy to one of higher energy. That is, it passively takes thermal energy from the surrounding medium, thereby warming to ambient temperature. For example, melting ice is an endothermic process as it takes energy (the heat of fusion) to induce the phase change. If the object acts as an infinite sink (say by converting thermal energy to some other form), then the object's temperature will never reach equilibrium with ambient and will continue to passively absorb thermal energy.

Your hypothesis on the IR meter vs thermocouple is entirely erroneous. The primary reason is that the sensors in question, measure according to functions of T or T and emissivity. It wouldn't make any difference if the objects being measured were surrounded by large magnetostatic fields or any other "fields" as they don't influence the equipment measuring the quantity of heat under study.

The quickest test method, using the thermal imager, would be to cast a new bismuth ball with a string down the center of it. Then hang said ball in a wind shield (to avoid air currents) and let it stabilize for an hour or so. Then use the thermal imager to take a QUALITATIVE reading, then proceed to the next stage by placing the magnet underneath the hanging sphere. If you can set the imager to a record mode do so, and take time laps photos every 10 or 20 seconds for at least an hour to two hours. If there is a rise in temp. place the magnet closer, see if there is a direct relation of delta T and flux density. From there you can attempt to calculate heating energy as a function of flux density and grams of bismuth. However, if your ambient temperature fluctuates by more than 1-2*C, and the qualitative delta T of the bismuth isn't significantly above this noise level, all results are in validated and you need to find a temperature controlled environment to more accurately conduct the test.

[ldrancer]

aintcha discharging the magent and the magnets arent free to charge are they? how does making, a magnet?.. cost. like them bars you carry around that attract metal. how much do they cost to make? or can you find them?

[spacecase0]

upgradd,
you can point out all the errors you want
and they can be as valid as they appear,
but science is all about reproduction of something one person did by others,
you try it, and do it to your standards,
I and many others would love to see your results

[Dog-One]

Dog-One, not to be pedantic, but a "negative temperature drop" would imply that the temperature has increased. Furthermore, unless your are implying a delta reading against some reference, say ambient air, you realistically can't have a negative temperature. Ultimately temperature, as according to the molecular theory of gases (using the Kelvin scale), is an absolute quantity having no positive or negative values.

I mean temperature differential. The difference thereof between two measuring points in space, which means it must exist withing a field, as space does not exist without a field.

For the purposes of measuring, negative implies the target senses a value smaller than the reference; positive implies the target senses a value larger than the reference.

Your hypothesis on the IR meter vs thermocouple is entirely erroneous.

Maybe unclear, not erroneous. So to clarify, an IR meter by its design has its reference and its target separated by considerable space, much more so than a thermocouple.

The primary reason is that the sensors in question, measure according to functions of T or T and emissivity. It wouldn't make any difference if the objects being measured were surrounded by large magnetostatic fields or any other "fields" as they don't influence the equipment measuring the quantity of heat under study.

Will you state for the record temperature does not involve any association with fields?

[upgradd]

Spacecase,

I do agree with you that science is about reproducibility and 3rd party validation. However, the burden of proof is on the discoverer, not others. Once dependable data is generated and sufficient evidence is provided then others may decided to try and reproduce the results. To say otherwise is silly and childish. As the experiment currently stands, the necessary criterion, associated with attempting a reproduction of the experiment, have yet to be met: the experiment is flawed and the data is inconclusive enough to warrant my own investigation. Furthermore, I am extremely skeptical that actual heating was evolved in the experiment. This line of reasoning descends from the fact that diamagnetism has been extensively studied and this effect has not been found to be extant in the way described by Ken. There are known phenomena that allow for magnetic materials to act as heat pumps (magnetocaloric effect better known as magnetic refrigeration). However, Ken's experiment does not appear to exhibit this effect. Feel free to try and prove him right, it's not my job to do so.

[ldrancer]

this isnt free if permanent magnets arent permanent. i know, bismuth is a permanent, bismuth. its a thing. its an elemnt. or thing. but a permamenet magnet isnt a thing. its a man made thing so its not free

[TheoriaApophasis]

Spacecase,

I do agree with you that science is about reproducibility and 3rd party validation. However, the burden of proof is on the discoverer, not others..

I have no such burden, I placed the information out there, people are (of course) free to confirm or refute same themselves.

You assume Im out looking for praise or validation, but that isnt the case.




the experiment only has 2 NON MOVING PARTS, hardly rocket science engineering.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Spacecase,
This line of reasoning descends from the fact that diamagnetism has been extensively studied and this effect has not been found to be extant in the way described by Ken.

this is where EVERYONE fails,....... there are many descriptions, and NO EXPLAINATIONS.



Our current state of IDIOT SCIENCE has put the F@(#$)%& idiot Einstein on a peak


Our current state of IDIOT SCIENCE talks about "superconductivity", but there is no such thing, its extreme diamagnetism, i.e. hyper low magnetic permeability.


Our current state of IDIOT SCIENCE talks about SPACETIME "warping" things etc etc, but there IS NO SUCH THING (Tesla said this was BS as well!).

space nor time are EITHER forces or fields, they cannot ACT on ANYTHING



Our current state of IDIOT SCIENCE talks about "magnetic attraction", but NO SUCH BS EXISTS.....

“If you were to tell someone close to you that ‘there is utterly no such thing as magnetic attraction’, they would inquire as to your
medication or wonder what the punch line is. The very premise, from countless thousands of years past to the present, as evidenced
from ‘magnets’ accelerating nails, iron bits, and ferrous objects to the ‘magnet’, and ‘opposite poles attracting/accelerating towards
each other’, is as deeply ingrained in the human consciousness as the Sun rising in the East every morning. The ancient lie, this
perceptual titanic error is as innate as breathing. As is the case, all attraction (and ‘repulsion’) is governed by dielectricity, not
magnetism, which is the ‘dielectric field’ -Faraday, which in discharging, is the radiation Ether-modality we call magnetism. That
magnetism is reaching out (as, in the creation of) "into" space is not in question, however radiation only displaces things, as in the case of magnetism, causes an
inductive reaction at the interatomic magneto-dielectric of ferrous objects, thereby causing dielectric coherency from magnetic
displacement and resultant acceleration to the ‘magnet’ as the act of dielectric voidance. Radiation attracts nothing. Soon you will
find out the simplex nature of the “magnet” which is powered by dielectric coherency (either I.D.C. induced dielectric coherency, or
I.D.C.C. induced dielectric capacitance and coherency) and likewise you will have a clear, lucid, logical, coherent, proved
understanding of magnets and magnetism that explains all observed phenomena of same” - Uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism.




We think ourselves advanced critters, but we are NOT.

[ldrancer]

I have no such burden, I placed the information out there, people are (of course) free to confirm or refute same themselves.

You assume Im out looking for praise or validation, but that isnt the case.




the experiment only has 2 NON MOVING PARTS, hardly rocket science engineering.

i, myself, have put the burden of proof on you. you title states, and i questioned that. the energy, you produce can be produced in the manufacture of a permanent magnet

as you can pick out from what ive said.

and magnet attraction they show a planet with a moon going around it, or a sun with a planet in there, little bar graph deal showing the time space warp thing and show the thing keeping on just orbiting around it. which i wonder hwy it doesnt just orbit off in the other direction, nothings holding it, they claim the bend .. does it. but anyway, what powers it then? and that word orbit i just put question to it, since orbit doesnt consider hold, the planets gotta power to go, around and why would it just roll offf somewhere they claim it holds becuase of a bend. theres no bend there. look at the pictures where they say it. or imagine it. like a trampoline with a ball in it, you cant roll another ball around it and it just start circling it, oh wait ill make a machine to do that, no wait ill build it in space then ill send the power down to here, by a wire, no big deal then ill have free energy for life. alright cool. no wait IT doesnt happen like that. on the trampoline it will not hit the bend. like in their pictures. if it hits the bend itll run off in another direction if its caught it will smack into it and stop. and you have to compare it to space. why not smack or just spin off. oh some random it will eventually leave deal. thats retardedness. stop tyhinking like that that that sort of crap ever happens. gravity, or anything doesnt work like that. compare it to any other time scale youve ever seen. whats the difference between earth and space. a vacuum and 14.7psi. what the crap. so your difference will be a 14.7x multiplier on any test result you can get, trying to do this. right? compared to space. or which component of friction or on earth gravity are they associating with. but anyway x 14.7 your result and its not even like that.

or can someone explain this to me?

[Aaron]

mixing the term free energy

this isnt free if permanent magnets arent permanent. i know, bismuth is a permanent, bismuth. its a thing. its an elemnt. or thing. but a permamenet magnet isnt a thing. its a man made thing so its not free

You're mixing definitions of free energy with a financial term free.

Free energy is the free environmental source potential that is aether sources, comes into the system once it is "polarized", then it gets depolarized when it meets any resistance. That resistance is what energy is since it is the dissipation or disorganization of organized source potential so it is free energy - that we are not inputting.

Magnet's can lose 1% per year, but is so small it is not noticeable and that isn't an absolute rule either. I have magnets 15 years old that still are as strong as the day I bought them - both neos and ceramics. There is money to make the magnet and buy it so there is a cost associated, but that is a financial cost so is not financially free - not the same type of free as "free energy".

Free energy permits the operator of the system to have some input, which is then LEVERAGED just like an investment where external free source potential comes in to do work - just like interest earned, which did not come out of our pocket.

Even if the magnets lose strength and cost money, if this principle that Ken is showing is what it is, that is a very valid demonstration of a free energy system.

A heat pump costs money and will have some maintenance even if a little and it can make a couple hundred times the amount of heat compared to the electrical cost to run the compressor. That is over 1.0 COP and is also a valid demonstration of leveraging nature to take advantage of environmental heat just sitting around - a heat pump is a real free energy machine and it costs money.

Bedini always said there is no free energy because it costs money to build the machine but he was just making a point that you do have to invest something. Is the energy that comes into the system free from the environment? You bet.

[Aaron]

The only thing warped is Einstein's mind

i, myself, have put the burden of proof on you. you title states, and i questioned that. the energy, you produce can be produced in the manufacture of a permanent magnet

as you can pick out from what ive said.

and magnet attraction they show a planet with a moon going around it, or a sun with a planet in there, little bar graph deal showing the time space warp thing and show the thing keeping on just orbiting around it. which i wonder hwy it doesnt just orbit off in the other direction, nothings holding it, they claim the bend .. does it. but anyway, what powers it then? and that word orbit i just put question to it, since orbit doesnt consider hold, the planets gotta power to go, around and why would it just roll offf somewhere they claim it holds becuase of a bend. theres no bend there. look at the pictures where they say it. or imagine it. like a trampoline with a ball in it, you cant roll another ball around it and it just start circling it, oh wait ill make a machine to do that, no wait ill build it in space then ill send the power down to here, by a wire, no big deal then ill have free energy for life. alright cool. no wait IT doesnt happen like that. on the trampoline it will not hit the bend. like in their pictures. if it hits the bend itll run off in another direction if its caught it will smack into it and stop. and you have to compare it to space. why not smack or just spin off. oh some random it will eventually leave deal. thats retardedness. stop tyhinking like that that that sort of crap ever happens. gravity, or anything doesnt work like that. compare it to any other time scale youve ever seen. whats the difference between earth and space. a vacuum and 14.7psi. what the crap. so your difference will be a 14.7x multiplier on any test result you can get, trying to do this. right? compared to space. or which component of friction or on earth gravity are they associating with. but anyway x 14.7 your result and its not even like that.

or can someone explain this to me?

Einstein's mind can be warped or curved but space cannot.

Space filled with aether is displaced by a mass and the mass tries to rebound back to where it was displaced.

You put a ball in water and the ball displaces the aether all the way around it and not like a ball rolling around a funnel that doesn't even consider the entirety of the relationship of the mass to space - that is the "curved space" downfall and fallacy.

All the gravitational potential comes from this displaced aether and not by storing energy into some object lifted against gravity. Einstein's view is upside down and inside out from reality. I've posted plenty on this subject you can search for it on this forum.

That's about all I'll personally deviate from the topic of this thread.