ReGenX Coils and ReGenXtra switching

[Turion]

Those names you called me are what is known as “grounds” for a libel lawsuit. Just so we’re clear. Since everyone knows what MY name is and I don’t hide in the shadows.

[bistander]

Poor baby. It's ok for you to call me a liar, fraud, con man and tell everyone that I spread BS, but when we ridicule you we're baaaaaaad boys. And don't say you haven't done that because I have the screen shots to prove it. You're pathetic. It's absolutely correct to question theories, results, and demand proof, but it is NOT ok when you resort to calling people liars, frauds and con men in a pathetic attempt to squeeze more information out of them than they are willing to share. What we choose to share or keep to ourselves is our choice and people who would attempt to shame someone into giving away more than they feel comfortable with need to check their OWN motivations. Our own conscience should dictate our actions, not the ego of someone else on this forum. And if you disagree with MY philosophy, that is YOUR choice. But don't attempt to inflict YOUR values on me. I am entitled to live my life my way, and I certainly do NOT answer to you for anything. Especially when I understand how little you actually know about this stuff.

When you told me, and the rest of the world a lie, and continue to tell that lie, for years, those names you say I called you are fitting aren't they? You don't have, don't have any evidence of ever having, and nobody else in the world has, or ever had a machine which is capable of what you claim(ed).

Should you, or some replicator, actually demonstrate and prove your claimed performance, I'll apologize and change my opinion of you.

Here's hoping that day comes, seriously. It would be a much better life for millions, or billions of people if energy was that easy. It's too bad that the motives of a few people hide the truth.

bi

[Turion]

Poor baby. It's ok for you to call me a liar, fraud, con man and tell everyone that I spread BS, but when we ridicule you we're baaaaaaad boys. And don't say you haven't done that because I have the screen shots to prove it. You're pathetic. It's absolutely correct to question theories, results, and demand proof, but it is NOT ok when you resort to calling people liars, frauds and con men in a pathetic attempt to squeeze more information out of them than they are willing to share. What we choose to share or keep to ourselves is our choice and people who would attempt to shame someone into giving away more than they feel comfortable with need to check their OWN motivations. Our own conscience should dictate our actions, not the ego of someone else on this forum. And if you disagree with MY philosophy, that is YOUR choice. But don't attempt to inflict YOUR values on me. I am entitled to live my life my way, and I certainly do NOT answer to you for anything. Especially when I understand how little you actually know about this stuff.

[bistander]

Bistander, it's OK to show and cite laws so long as they are used as tools to forward understanding, but when they become impediments to understanding then the understanding of their application has to be cited, because laws and rules are human creations, but nature and it's unknown secrets still remain the province of God and the Universe. It is hubris to think we humans have that knowledge and it is laughable as well when confronted with the reality which we puny humans find ourselves living in.

Bistander;
You can't have your cake and eat it too . A person cannot be taken seriously who claims they want to help and then turns round and say's they don't care if they piss someone off. It's good you say how you currently think on this because it tells me what I need to know, but it's not something you've thought about deeply, otherwise you wouldn't say it. I only say such things when I don't care what another person thinks of me and usually only when I am myself pissed off.

In my opinion, you misuse your talents, mostly in the approach to analysis and in this case it's one of cause and effect, and which results in these last exchanges. You are capable but have a somewhat petrified style of going about this that earns you many stones.

Information changes the fluid which is our knowledge and while foundations will remain, those too can be subject to modifications, and we must recognize this fact. Recall one of the first times I ever said anything to you and how nasty that was? I've thought of that many times ya know. It wasn't right but maybe it was necessary. You're a bit like a mule ya know. You have to thump the mule to get it's attention first, and then hope the carrot is enticing enough that it may follow, but ya know most times the mule just gets pissed off and starts bucking and kicking. It can pull a wagon load if you can get the mule to want the carrot, but it seems that's the tricky part.

PS: I hope this is meaningful. Just work more on opening up to idea that more may be at work in this device.

Thanks.

It's only after the way Turion & BM have treated me and ridiculed me that makes me uncaring about their feelings. And Turion's partner, Matthew Jones was a whole lot worse.

Regards,

bi

[Gambeir]

I assure you this is not my objective. I want nothing more than to see Turion get it together and complete his test. And I really don't care if I piss him off or not. I prefer to have him stop posting falsehoods and errors.

This member (dragon) hit the nail on the head.


Regards,

bi

Bistander, it's OK to show and cite laws so long as they are used as tools to forward understanding, but when they become impediments to understanding then the understanding of their application has to be cited, because laws and rules are human creations, but nature and it's unknown secrets still remain the province of God and the Universe. It is hubris to think we humans have that knowledge and it is laughable as well when confronted with the reality which we puny humans find ourselves living in.

Bistander;
You can't have your cake and eat it too . A person cannot be taken seriously who claims they want to help and then turns round and say's they don't care if they piss someone off. It's good you say how you currently think on this because it tells me what I need to know, but it's not something you've thought about deeply, otherwise you wouldn't say it. I only say such things when I don't care what another person thinks of me and usually only when I am myself pissed off.

In my opinion, you misuse your talents, mostly in the approach to analysis and in this case it's one of cause and effect, and which results in these last exchanges. You are capable but have a somewhat petrified style of going about this that earns you many stones.

Information changes the fluid which is our knowledge and while foundations will remain, those too can be subject to modifications, and we must recognize this fact. Recall one of the first times I ever said anything to you and how nasty that was? I've thought of that many times ya know. It wasn't right but maybe it was necessary. You're a bit like a mule ya know. You have to thump the mule to get it's attention first, and then hope the carrot is enticing enough that it may follow, but ya know most times the mule just gets pissed off and starts bucking and kicking. It can pull a wagon load if you can get the mule to want the carrot, but it seems that's the tricky part.

PS: I hope this is meaningful. Just work more on opening up to idea that more may be at work in this device.

[Turion]

bi,
This one's for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqMl5CRoFdk

[bistander]

Nice test unit you've built up there Mikey, unfortunately, I'm not sure what your trying to show there though. With the numbers your machine is showing I see as shown in your "standard generator" mode an efficiency of around 5.7% and in "non standard" mode an efficiency of 8.9% . In the previous video you talked about something going over but I'm not sure what...

In order to achieve unity your output should match input ( 100% ). ( 8.26 watts in with 8.26 watts out )...

Your showing 8.26 watts in with 0.74 watts out ???

Hi dragon,

Nice post. Some good points.

He is working with AC so the power factor needs to be considered when calculating real power in watts. The input of 15.9 VAC and 0.52A gives 8.26 VA, or 8.26 volt amperes, not watts.

Efficiency is the (output watts) / (input watts) * 100%.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Ya know Turion, the object appears to me simply to piss you off and thereby impede what you're doing.

I assure you this is not my objective. I want nothing more than to see Turion get it together and complete his test. And I really don't care if I piss him off or not. I prefer to have him stop posting falsehoods and errors.

This member (dragon) hit the nail on the head.

... That's all bistander has been pushing for - proof of a claim. ...

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Thanks for the compliment on the hardware Dragon. I will repeat in concept testing or in standard generator facilities operational costs are separate from COP calcs as they are only a nominal percentage. For example. Turning the rotor cost a power company 10,000 watts but they generate 2 billion watt/hrs.

Strike out all operational costs to be fair. For instance if my generator delivered 1 billion watt/hrs my rotor costs are so small almost not worth mentioning. I hope people can understand this simple relationship and get past all of the "Can't be done"

Generating efficiencies can be calculated as follows output/input power needed. It is that simple this is how COP is calculated. Since I do not have a 100 billion dollar apparatus strike the rotor rotational charges for now. Start at "0" I am right.

When power is drawn off the right relationship is given in the examples above. Some of my test show 90% and some as low as 38% but this is conventional generating. Conversely your argument that my generating is not up with the times? For instance a power companies generator rotor costs 10,000watts to turn and we decide to generate 1000 watts and the lights go on but it costs 1200w extra on the input. This is your come back analogy the the cop is 1000/11,2200 = 9% efficiency this is your thinking. Your generator can't and is no good. This is your mind.

Clearly not thinking clear. Thinkagain for example (Here we are again trying to talk to the non thinking )
if the same power company wants 2000w of load lighting and the rotor OPERATIONAL COSTS are still 10,000watts (want to make sure you are still with me) the efficiency doubles so 18% efficient. If the same company needs 200,000watts of lighting and it costs them 275,000watts =10,000 operational costs the COP is about the same with or without the rotational surcharges incurred by the rotating mass in the center.

Here were are again talking about things that should be common sense but instead point of haggle. I can think clearly, you guys should trust me. I know what I am saying here. It is not guessing, it is a fact. COP relationships always incur more costs at the input to get a given output. This relationship has been shown many times and frankly I am waiting for you non thinking people to start the thinking processes up. The schools have conditioned you till the brain no longer functions properly. Think guys think. for example

If a power company wants to produce 200,000 watts and it costs 275,000w + 10,000w =285,000 COP???
COP = input/output or 200,000/285,000 = 70% efficient.

If the same company pulls a load of 10,000w of lights the rotor costs 10,000w then the input without rotor costs is higher say 12,000 input to get 10,000w output so 12,000w + 10,000watt = 22,000watt input COP?
Now COP for the same generator is only cable of 10,000w/ 22,000w?? is this the way you think? Wrong thinking again. 10,000/22,000= 45% efficiency? So we know already the the generator is capable of more than 70% COP yet you think the generator can only get an efficiency or 45%?? Is this your thinking? Yes it is, this is how you come back against my figuring. Non thinking. For instance

The same company generated 1 billion watts but has to input 1.1 billion COP= 91% efficient now does the 10,000 watt rotational cost effect the COP?? Does it? No, I'll answer for you non rational thinker, NO!! Oh it's changed 90.99% efficient, see I was right and you were wrong and on we go.

You people are not only incapable of thinking but are unwilling. No offense Dragon thanks for giving me a chance to talk to the obstinate who think they know more than meThink again boys.

In prototypes rotational costs are 0 just like in large generating facilities is 0 now are you all going to get that thru your heads or am I going to have to do more pounding?Now I know why I like Turion he can answer more intelligently and I don't get so jacked up. I ride him too. He at least can think?

Yikes! That's a bunch of gibberish.

watt/hrs

What is a watt per hour?

COP = input/output or 200,000/285,000 = 70% efficient

Efficiency is defined as output/input.

And then your post from yesterday.

... This means when a simple load such as a light bulb is placed across the ac terminals (Say 100 watts) and the COP aka Coefficient Of Power comes into play..
...
If so explain. And don't give me "OH HE ALTERED THE GEN PERIMETERS" of course I did but how? Does anyone with a degree get this stuff. We all have them.

COP aka Coefficient Of Power

COP stands for Coefficient of Performance.

PERIMETERS

What does the perimeter have to do with it?

[Gambeir]

I stand by the statement you quoted above. A heavier rotor is a bigger load on the motor and increases the amp draw of the motor. Period. In what way does that violate ANY of Newtons Laws of motion? It doesn't. Just you trying misdirection AGAIN.

Ya know Turion, the object appears to me simply to piss you off and thereby impede what you're doing. I see this same tactic used to impede free energy researchers, anti~gravity researchers, and also strangely enough anytime it's suggested that Aliens don't exist. In order to progress in this life a person must be open enough want to question their own beliefs, their education, their conventions, and the motive is the hope that doing that might lead to new understanding. You understand that, I understand that, but not all people understand that and they also do not want change.

Lets consider laws of physics for a moment.

Quantum Physics is the new Einstein, it is a retelling and updated revsion of Einsteinan physics, and QP say's that the quantum field is a vacuum, and that is in some sense true if looked upon by a certain standard of relativity, but in reality we are talking about a hyperspatial field we know as the ether, and we know it's a dielectric field because we can now see it as the magnetic field using a ferrocell lens. The problem is it's not in the same phase as our own, but out of it comes matter creation, and this is one of the pretexts of quantum physics as well.

Matter creation and transmutation is the for this revision of Einsteinian Physics, and the whole of quantum physics is, in effect, the exact same slanted, twisted, and re~structured telling of the Einsteinian lie and in order to keep the basic Einsteinian version of reality intact. In other words, convention exists to keep the blinders on and the system intact.

Regardless of officaldooms laws, we know that matter only has a relative weight due to induction of the ether, which is a dielectric field commonly recognized as producing magnetism. Now I notice this devices uses magnets and though I've only had time to skim across this thread I did send a message to BroMikey with some thoughts on this.

My point is that there are things going on in this arrangement which may have other effects. In other words, it's not enough to simply state a law says X,Y,or Z and that is that. Recognize that these laws are guides and as such they act only as a standard and not a measure of the mass in question.The weight of mass is not set in any bit of matter and can be altered through the actions of other forces acting in this device.

Now if I had time I'd go in to more detail. At some point you just have to put people out to pasture. They either want to go where you're trying to go, or they don't, and you can't make them go there either.

Just in case anyone is wondering > Bromikey only has my picture because the mens knitting club invited me over.

[BroMikey]

I’m waiting for numbers from Greyland. ..........
Called me at midnight last night and woke me up......................................

Some folks are REALLY not going to like what I have to show.

That is because they have not done their homework and therefore do not understand what they are looking at. To most it is a weak example of a collection of parts not worth reviewing. Just a guy fooling himself with his pile of junk. This is the way many feel. Just another blind old fool he thinks he has something and likes to showboat His reason for being) but is and has "ZERO" this is the mindset. Newton says so parroting and so forth.

My suggestion to people who can't follow this work is to take up another hobby maybe something at the level of their IQ. Maybe knitting? Yeah let me know and get rested up.
_45002296_manknitting_getty226.jpg

[Turion]

I’m waiting for numbers from Greyland. He has it working and is doing measurements now. Called me at midnight last night and woke me up because he likes to work at night and I am usually up until 1:00 AM. Last night I was beat, and went to bed at 8:00. I took a couple days off and got the benches in my shop cleared off. I set up one bench just for the generator so will slowly begin assembly. When I have anything worth sharing, I will share it.

Some folks are REALLY not going to like what I have to show.

[BroMikey]

Nice test unit you've built up there Mikey, I'm not sure what your trying to show there. With the numbers your machine is showing I see as shown in your "standard generator" mode an efficiency of around 5.7% and in "non standard" mode an efficiency of 8.9% . In the previous video you talked about something going over but I'm not sure what...

In order to achieve unity your output should match input ( 100% ). ( 8.26 watts in with 8.26 watts out )...

Your showing 8.26 watts in with 0.74 watts out ???

Thanks for the compliment on the hardware Dragon. I will repeat in concept testing or in standard generator facilities operational costs are separate from COP calcs as they are only a nominal percentage. For example. Turning the rotor cost a power company 10,000 watts but they generate 2 billion watt/hrs.

Strike out all operational costs to be fair. For instance if my generator delivered 1 billion watt/hrs my rotor costs are so small almost not worth mentioning. I hope people can understand this simple relationship and get past all of the "Can't be done"

Generating efficiencies can be calculated as follows output/input power needed. It is that simple this is how COP is calculated. Since I do not have a 100 billion dollar apparatus strike the rotor rotational charges for now. Start at "0" I am right.

When power is drawn off the right relationship is given in the examples above. Some of my test show 90% and some as low as 38% but this is conventional generating. Conversely your argument that my generating is not up with the times? For instance a power companies generator rotor costs 10,000watts to turn and we decide to generate 1000 watts and the lights go on but it costs 1200w extra on the input. This is your come back analogy the the cop is 1000/11,200 = 1% efficiency this is your thinking. Your generator can't and is no good. This is your mind.

Clearly not thinking clear. Thinkagain for example (Here we are again trying to talk to the non thinking )
if the same power company wants 2000w of load lighting and the rotor OPERATIONAL COSTS are still 10,000watts (want to make sure you are still with me) the efficiency doubles so 18% efficient. If the same company needs 200,000watts of lighting and it costs them 275,000watts =10,000 operational costs the COP is about the same with or without the rotational surcharges incurred by the rotating mass in the center.

Here were are again talking about things that should be common sense but instead point of haggle. I can think clearly, you guys should trust me. I know what I am saying here. It is not guessing, it is a fact. COP relationships always incur more costs at the input to get a given output. This relationship has been shown many times and frankly I am waiting for you non thinking people to start the thinking processes up. The schools have conditioned you till the brain no longer functions properly. Think guys think. for example

If a power company wants to produce 200,000 watts and it costs 275,000w + 10,000w =285,000 COP???
COP = input/output or 200,000/285,000 = 70% efficient

If the same company pulls a load of 10,000w of lights the rotor costs 10,000w then the input without rotor costs is higher say 12,000 input to get 10,000w output so 12,000w + 10,000watt = 22,000watt input COP?
Now COP for the same generator is only cable of 10,000w/ 22,000w?? is this the way you think? Wrong thinking again. 10,000/22,000= 45% efficiency? So we know already the the generator is capable of more than 70% COP yet you think the generator can only get an efficiency or 45%?? Is this your thinking? Yes it is, this is how you come back against my figuring. Non thinking. For instance

The same company generated 1 billion watts but has to input 1.1 billion COP= 91% efficient now does the 10,000 watt rotational cost effect the COP?? Does it? No, I'll answer for you non rational thinker, NO!! Oh it's changed 90.99% efficient, see I was right and you were wrong and on we go.

You people are not only incapable of thinking but are unwilling. No offense Dragon thanks for giving me a chance to talk to the obstinate who think they know more than meThink again boys.

In prototypes rotational costs are 0 just like in large generating facilities is 0 now are you all going to get that thru your heads or am I going to have to do more pounding?Now I know why I like Turion he can answer more intelligently and I don't get so jacked up. I ride him too. He at least can think?

[dragon]

Nice test unit you've built up there Mikey, unfortunately, I'm not sure what your trying to show there though. With the numbers your machine is showing I see as shown in your "standard generator" mode an efficiency of around 5.7% and in "non standard" mode an efficiency of 8.9% . In the previous video you talked about something going over but I'm not sure what...

In order to achieve unity your output should match input ( 100% ). ( 8.26 watts in with 8.26 watts out )...

Your showing 8.26 watts in with 0.74 watts out ???

[BroMikey]

So quiet, careless so called experimenters who wouldn't know if a tidal wave
hit if it was good or bad. Sad, very sad bunch.Snap out boys and girls.

Start Conventional generating
Drive .57a X 15.9v RPM approx 1000 no output
Power increase .67 X 15.9v RPM drop 900 generated output 41.6v X 14.7ma

Start special generating
Drive .57a X 15.9v RPM approx 1000 no output
Power decrease .52a X 15.9v RPM increase 1100 (Slight) output 43.7v X 17.9ma

Results/Conclusion
Normal generating at power companies
Output = 41.6 X .o147 = .612watt power increase requirement= 15.9 X .100 = 1.59watts
COP = .612/1.59 = 38% efficient

Special generating at Mike's house conclusion
Output 43.7 X .0179 = .782 watt power decrease benefit 15.9 X .05 = .795watt drive savings
COP unknown (Infinite) COP = .795w +.782w / 0 = ???? Infinity.


Testing video