Tweet
Depending upon who you are and what responsibilities you possess.
Take your pick: Free Energy is Valid or is Not Valid?
Yesterday's conversation that I posted with AI on the topic of local versus global
conservation analysis turned out to be a very interesting discussion because AI
ended up admitting that conservation of energy is only half the story.
But by government and other public officials admitting to only *that half* and no
other,
they erroneously conclude that free energy is not possible.
Whether that be by direct or indirect means,
they can only provide direct means because if they admit to indirect,
then they admit to the other side of the problem,
which is conservation of charge.
So they give us this erroneous picture of reality that perpetual motion machines,
by definition,
are cut off from their environment,
yet they produce power.
That's so bogus, it's pathetic.
But that's because they have to not admit to the other half of the equation,
conservation of charge.
And that forces them to create a very unrealistic situation
to be ballyhooed because it's very easy to ballyhoo something that's unrealistic
because it's unrealistic.
So why not ballyhoo it?
But something more reasonable like conservation of charge *and* conservation of
energy as two non-duplicatable,
non-overlapping laws cannot be ballyhooed very readily.
In fact, it can't be ballyhooed at all.
Now,
I recall asking AI maybe a year or two or three ago,
what law can be mathematically stated as a mathematical equation would describe and
vindicate this so-called conservation of energy law?
Well...
There isn't any, AI admitted.
But then I asked, well, what comes closest?
Because the simulator,
what does the simulator operate off of that would come closest to conservation of
energy?
Oh, Kirchhoff's laws.
And I thought, well, that doesn't make sense when I looked at them (back then).
Well,
now it does make sense because
only Kirchhoff's current law, its equation for current,
has to do with conservation of energy.
While the other half of the story,
conservation of charge,
is vindicated by Kirchhoff's voltage law.
So AI almost gave me the right picture back in the day,
but not totally accurate, because it was only one half of the story.
And now I'm convinced because I can see it's valid,
but only because it's not half of the story anymore.
So...
All you physicists and engineers out there,
beware of this oversight on behalf of your profession,
your so-called profession,
and the public servants,
our government,
you know,
the U.S.
Patent Office taking leadership from you.
Please be aware of this oversight because it now validates parametric amplification
In a way that looks to the layperson like free energy was valid all along,
just nobody wanted to admit to it.
Well, it's not valid because it's not the whole story and it's more complicated than that
if you're just looking at the superficial end result and the superficial instigation and
nothing that goes on in between the two.
So, of course, to a layperson, free energy looks like it's true.
And for all intents and purposes, it is, from their standpoint.
But to an engineer or physicist who asks to validate to themselves and explain to
others,
such as government personnel,
such as the U.S.
Patent Office,
what does this all mean?
No, free energy is not possible.
You know, it all depends upon who you ask.
You either get the complicated version, "no", but there's more to it than that, or...
You get the simplistic version.
Yes, it's true.
Take your pick.
You get to decide whether Free Energy is Valid or Not Valid based on the simplistic or the technical view.
Here are the posts which lead me to this conclusion. They are placed in reverse chronological order:
Local vs Global Energy Conservation Analysis - by Vinyasi
Exploring Extended Electrodynamics and Maxwell's Missing Components
Parametric Resonance Modeling in LTspice - by Vinyasi
Rethinking Reactive and Real Power - by Vinyasi
Take your pick: Free Energy is Valid or is Not Valid?
Yesterday's conversation that I posted with AI on the topic of local versus global
conservation analysis turned out to be a very interesting discussion because AI
ended up admitting that conservation of energy is only half the story.
But by government and other public officials admitting to only *that half* and no
other,
they erroneously conclude that free energy is not possible.
Whether that be by direct or indirect means,
they can only provide direct means because if they admit to indirect,
then they admit to the other side of the problem,
which is conservation of charge.
So they give us this erroneous picture of reality that perpetual motion machines,
by definition,
are cut off from their environment,
yet they produce power.
That's so bogus, it's pathetic.
But that's because they have to not admit to the other half of the equation,
conservation of charge.
And that forces them to create a very unrealistic situation
to be ballyhooed because it's very easy to ballyhoo something that's unrealistic
because it's unrealistic.
So why not ballyhoo it?
But something more reasonable like conservation of charge *and* conservation of
energy as two non-duplicatable,
non-overlapping laws cannot be ballyhooed very readily.
In fact, it can't be ballyhooed at all.
Now,
I recall asking AI maybe a year or two or three ago,
what law can be mathematically stated as a mathematical equation would describe and
vindicate this so-called conservation of energy law?
Well...
There isn't any, AI admitted.
But then I asked, well, what comes closest?
Because the simulator,
what does the simulator operate off of that would come closest to conservation of
energy?
Oh, Kirchhoff's laws.
And I thought, well, that doesn't make sense when I looked at them (back then).
Well,
now it does make sense because
only Kirchhoff's current law, its equation for current,
has to do with conservation of energy.
While the other half of the story,
conservation of charge,
is vindicated by Kirchhoff's voltage law.
So AI almost gave me the right picture back in the day,
but not totally accurate, because it was only one half of the story.
And now I'm convinced because I can see it's valid,
but only because it's not half of the story anymore.
So...
All you physicists and engineers out there,
beware of this oversight on behalf of your profession,
your so-called profession,
and the public servants,
our government,
you know,
the U.S.
Patent Office taking leadership from you.
Please be aware of this oversight because it now validates parametric amplification
In a way that looks to the layperson like free energy was valid all along,
just nobody wanted to admit to it.
Well, it's not valid because it's not the whole story and it's more complicated than that
if you're just looking at the superficial end result and the superficial instigation and
nothing that goes on in between the two.
So, of course, to a layperson, free energy looks like it's true.
And for all intents and purposes, it is, from their standpoint.
But to an engineer or physicist who asks to validate to themselves and explain to
others,
such as government personnel,
such as the U.S.
Patent Office,
what does this all mean?
No, free energy is not possible.
You know, it all depends upon who you ask.
You either get the complicated version, "no", but there's more to it than that, or...
You get the simplistic version.
Yes, it's true.
Take your pick.
You get to decide whether Free Energy is Valid or Not Valid based on the simplistic or the technical view.
Here are the posts which lead me to this conclusion. They are placed in reverse chronological order:
Local vs Global Energy Conservation Analysis - by Vinyasi
Exploring Extended Electrodynamics and Maxwell's Missing Components
Parametric Resonance Modeling in LTspice - by Vinyasi
Rethinking Reactive and Real Power - by Vinyasi
Comment