The ultimate secret of free energy: Split the postive AND the negative

[Aromaz]

Radiant Energy

It is because of these unclear issues and all (Most) theories that I embarked on a search mission that spans 32 months now.

There is but one possible definition of Radiant Energy. It is all energy that is radiated from almost every possible matter inthe universe. Such we know as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Cosmic and a myrad of others. Now the question comes how to tap into this source!

Next is the issue of why things are operating, why atoms and molecules even exist; and howcome they are 'overunity' because they always spin/move/radiate? This is where the 'magic' of light comes in. Oh question again - What is Light? Light and Photons are not the same.

If you get that answer, then so many possibilities becomes very realistic, potential and wonderful. Like howcome Black holes even exist? How can they operate? The whole concept of gravity pull into a black hole is a big ball of bull.

Black holes are a point of neutralization. That is a space point where polarity/magnetism is neutralized. I still seek the answer in my dreams of "Which is the cause and which is the result between Polarity and Magentism."

Black holes are the biggest thorn in the side of those who underwrite concervation of energy! It criples the whole theory, therfore we are free to continue looking for 'OverUnity'

[Aaron]

no conservation of energy

Radiative events are in fact a conversion of the potential into real movement. It is a cause and effect loop that is governed by the transporters themselves. If that wasn't the case then everything would wind down because all that potential has no way to be realized or made real.

Remember that energy can never be created nor destroyed only changed from one form to another. That is a given i would hope.

We all to many times say that just because I lifted a ball 5 feet and let it go that I am responsible for the ball falling.

Your explanation mixes apples and oranges.

And everything would "wind down" if there was the transformation you
talk about because it does not allow for extra external input into the
system. It sustains for the fact that the potential differences are
constantly being re-established over and over on each cycle. The
"transformation" of the SAME energy from one form to another leads to
non stop dissipation without allowing the system to "re-gauge" itself to
to speak.

If you lift the ball 5 feet in the air, it is claimed that you are storing
potential in the ball and when you let go of the ball, you only get out
what you store in it.

If you lift a 40 gram ball for example to 1 meter, it requires 0.392 joules
to lift it to that height. And according to conventional wisdwom, you can
only get out of the system what you put in.

However, if the ball hits the ground and bounces up to 83 cm (83% of
the 1 meter), it required 0.325 joules to lift that same ball to 83% of the
height, which is 83% of the initial joules required to lift it to 1 meter.

On the second bounce, if it goes 83% of the 83cm, it will rise to 69 cm.
It requires 0.270 joules to lift it to 69 cm.

The first bounce of the ball required 0.325 joules to get it to 83cm.
The 2nd bounce of the ball required 0.270 joules to get it to 69cm.
The total joules of measurable actual lifting work done on the 1st and 2nd
bounce is 0.595 joules.

It only required 0.392 to lift it initially to the 1 meter yet 0.595 joules
of work were done on the 2nd and third bounce.

When they say you get out what you put in - you get out x amount based
on the potential you store in to the system. Well, it's bogus.
What you get out of your own input of 0.392 joules of work to lift it to
a meter IS THE ACTUAL LIFTING OF THE BALL ITSELF. And at that point,
all your input is GONE - dissipated - back into the vacuum.

You established a NEW potential difference (height) where NEW potential
(gravitational potential) enters the system, the the positive polarity of the
vaccum flux as it moves in the direction of the center of the Earth's mass,
pushes on the proton of the mass of the ball pushing it down to the
surface, there is a very small loss in air resistance - since it is only
1 meter and there is 17% loss in impact/heat/friction/etc... and the ball
is able to "regauge" itself to 83% of the original height meaning it is 83%
efficient. That lift did NOT come from any of the original potential we put
in - what we put in is GONE - it is NEW potential that enters.

There was NO transformation or changing of that original energy into
a new form - what we put in is GONE - dissipated throughout the lifting
of the ball itself. Anything that happens afterward is all FREE WORK
from the gravitational potential input into the system.

Now if you or anyone else feels the need to use the word transformation
because of being attached to it in one way or
another, the only transformation the ball goes through in relationship with
the gravitational potential is that a new DIPOLE or height is established
over and over.

But don't tell me the energy (which isn't even a thing it is an adjective
to describe potential moving from one potential difference to another while
having losses along the way) - the energy itself is not undergoing a
change from one form to another.

You lift the ball, the potential that is input undergoes losses in the amount
of 0.392 joules to get it to 1 meter. The WORK required to lift it is only
a measurement of how much loss the potential will encounter during that
1 meter lift. LOSS IS THE WORK.

You do NOT get to keep or store any of the LOSS or WORK that was
done to lift it to a meter. The work is the energy. When lifting the ball,
the mass of the ball resists the downward push of the positive charge of
the aether or gravitational potential. Each point of impact on the mass
of the atoms that make up the ball is a point of dissipation between
our lift and the downward push of gravity.

So again, what we get directly out of what we put in IS the lifting of
the ball in and of itself with nothing stored in the ball at 1 meter. Only a
potential difference is established.

If the math says that 0.392 joules is required to lift 40 grams to a meter,
and if we get ANYTHING back, it didn't really require 0.392 joules to
lift it to a meter then did it? The math is accurate as far as predicting
how much LOSS an object will encounter of a certain weight up against
gravity to a certain height. That is all the math will tell you is how much
LOSS is encountered while lifting the object. LOSS is dissipated potential
that goes right back to the vacuum, period. Anything that comes into the
system after is not a changing of form of that original loss or energy -
it is completely NEW. There is no transforming that energy from one
form to another.

It is open to external input (gravity) and is allowed to asymmetrically
re-establish a new potential difference with small losses along the way
but the work done on the 2nd and third bounce alone is 1.5 times
the work that was required to lift it to begin with.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree and let it be that.

I'll leave you with this quote from Eric Dollard:

"There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energyE is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency" - Eric Dollard

------------

You may be right and Eric Dollard may be wrong, but my money is on
Eric Dollard and others that have a clear insight into how invalid
conservation of energy is.

[Jbignes5]

Ok back on track...

I think I may have found out how Tesla directed the charges away from the pull of the source.

Check out the diode tube in this wiki. It says it controls the current flow through electrostatic control.

Vacuum tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments?

[Jbignes5]

This also explains...

When we energize or give a wire a potential that is way more then the matter can take it pulls more dielectric conductors inside of it and it will literally push the matter apart to accommodate the inrush of dielectric conductors. You know explode the wire. Tesla said that thin wires exploded with the force of dynamite when subjected to ultra high voltages of the impulse nature and a shock wave is felt that penetrates all matter. This is where he learned that those impulses are composed of smaller then our traditional matter and can influence matter to a degree when the dielectric grabs charges away from the epicenter while radiating outwards. Literally blowing the matter into the smallest components if the mass is insufficient to handle the interruption of it's hold on itself.

Not only does this action focus the dielectric component it squeezes the material to the utmost point or planks distance. Then a rebound occurs and the matter is literally falls apart but with the added bonus of the charges all being uniform now. What happens when you have two like poles of a magnet together and suddenly let go? Tesla knew this was the way to generate pure clean energy but the method needed to be refined and that is exactly what he did.

It's funny too because he didn't let the cat out of the bag either once it was laughed at. He hid it in all of his writings as he discovered it and as he refined it his visions grew of the terrible potential they opened up to. Man was no more ready for the truth then he was to release this unto the universe. They actually accused him of using magic and this was the signal that man wasn't capable of hold onto such power. His saying was what? Mine is the future. When we finally put down the almighty dollar and listen to nature, to live our lives helping one another to understand where we live and how to best take care of that home.

[Jbignes5]

I will not start this again Aaron..

I will not start an arguement again Aaron on the poor example you choose.

What exactly is radiative energy then Aaron. Isn't that a form of conversion of the original potential? Thats what these transporters are. They react to the potential difference between two points in space and then convert that imbalance to movement to attain the balance that would be supported by their surface area. Radiative events are in fact a conversion of the potential into real movement. It is a cause and effect loop that is governed by the transporters themselves. If that wasn't the case then everything would wind down because all that potential has no way to be realized or made real.
There are a lot of different radiative events as well. From heat to electrical. There is no refuting this. Everything is radiative and everything converts this potential into what it is capable of transforming into the real. It can do that because matter displaces the medium. It can affect and be affected by the medium, with the medium being vast. It all is connected except for one method no matter if you think it is or not, weather you believe it is closed or not it is all one big open system.

Even our best systems still radiate a certain amount of emf to the outside world. Some though have figured out how to separate the system from the rest but a majority are very very noisy in that sense.

Just how did Tesla work out this separation? Static shielding! It seems to be the only way to make a complete division of the medium of space where one wants that division. That is truely a closed system but it still needs an in and an out to interact with the gross charges around that system. Look at the Tesla hydro generation system and you would see that a division between the active potential has to be kept away from the rest of the system. So they used pipes and such to make that division and the water kept it's potential to be used by the generator he devised. If he just plopped the generator into the water it would have shorted out or became ineffective.

This to must be worked out in any system we can devise. It should tap the potential give it a channel to run through and somehow extract the charges as we need them. How is this potential maintained? Well me must not destroy the potential of the source but somehow redirect it to be converted to another form much like the natural process. Remember that energy can never be created nor destroyed only changed from one form to another. That is a given i would hope.

Lets look at one simple example of this. If Harimein is right and there is a black hole in all matter then this could be the link to the rest of the natural system. We know today from studying them that they are usually paired with a conduit of invisible energy, faster then light speed make this energy invisible to our eyes and detectors. Our sun is most probably the exit of the pair. As seen from watching them there is an active matter/energy separator or grinder at one point and then the energy gets sucked down the connection between the two. The exit of our sun is so full of energy that it can attract other matter into it and attain a higher capacity to hold the energy it can not radiate away. In fact the whole reason it radiates is because of matter. This increase is both driven by it's matter and the difference of the paired entry or other black hole. I agree with Harimein on that and it makes perfect sense. That one is an original thought by him as far as I know. I doubt anyone dared to think that there are connections out there that make it all connected in some way.

Now how do we relate that to our own planet. Well just like the sun we have or share a connection to it. It is one way of attaining a balance but our earth radiates also creating a slight imbalance in that system and continues the flow in that system. We share the radiative job as we are connected to the whole thing through our sun. Now looked at from a whole point of view we have a driving source(entrance) and a shielded connection(conduit) and an exit of the driver system. Everything else is a tap and resulting cyclic systems that are all dependent on the driver system. Like cogs in a gear set each is reliant to the closest connection. Change one aspect of that ratio and it either helps or slows the whole(complete) system down. In our case we have substantially altered our portion of the system through pollution. This has caused our planet to become like a massive layden Jar. Collecting massive charges into the center of our planet. This has increased the base potential of our system and is rightly affecting all the other connection that is our solar system since our planet doesn't need as much potential as the rest of the solar system it is causing strange things to happen like Jupiter releasing extreme radiative events to balance it's increased share of potential. Or Saturn that has formed a weird geometric shape at it's north pole from the increased share strengthening it's connection, hence forming a pattern in the clouds around that connection.

Why is it that we are seeing massive earth quakes and bigger then usual tropical storms and anything else we can see in our weather system? Our core is becoming more energetic from the charges that our potential is pulling in. Once you get to a certain point it will go into a runaway collection of charges. This overrides the connection potential to our sun and now feeds back into that connection. Remember these connections are bi directional. Think of it as a tank circuit. The potential is a moving potential that pulls the charges in different directions as time goes on. You would have the potential switch much faster and the charges sloshing back and forth like a bowl of water does.

Resonance and harmonics are just how many times does the circuit get to tap the charges to flow in that direction. Tapping or pushing a swing multiple times would have the target receive multiple equal pushes in the same direction or enhancing inertia of the flow since it is going in the same direction until at some point you would need to add substantially more taps to reach the next resonance or harmonic.

The funny thing is that once I figured out that the dielectric and the charge components operate in a two fold method it showed me that we are adding more dielectric to our atmosphere and it is adjusting by reducing the radiative event and increasing the reach of our potential to pull way more charges then our planet is capable of letting out. This is a chemical/electrical modification of our space and it will reach a maximum until the matter can not contain the charges anymore. This would be a massive discharge and I believe we have had them before but on a much smaller scale. We are the reason for the increase. We are also the reason this hasn't been discovered earlier or buried when discovered.

I believe our ancient ancestors knew way more then we think we know now. They actually went a different route in energy. They knew about the fundamental energy that runs this all. They experienced something earth shattering and it had nothing to do with a meteor. It had more to do with not having the wisdom to handle such great power. Although it does look like a few knew something the rest didn't and they tried to correct it by use of the massive Pyramids. If the fundamental matter or dielectric component they saw and built to control our planets internal charge is true then we have the answer. We just need to stop arguing about the semantics and get to how it operates so that we can save ourselves.

We all to many times say that just because I lifted a ball 5 feet and let it go that I am responsible for the ball falling. In effect owning the whole system when you have zero input to it other then lifting the ball. It does not change the fact that the system you used to raise the ball has anything to do with the same system it falls into to make it fall. Now if one tried to put a device there to harness the fall it would stop the ball from falling or at the least slow it down and then one would need to pay more to raise it again. So the example you showed is a trick question, a play on the observer because they don't know the current whole system you are planning to utilize. This is no more then a Magic trick and then you go Walla cop>1 when you have little idea about what the system you are dropping the ball into. Now if one looked at the Tesla method of extracting energy from an already established flow that in fact is totally free because it does little to disturb that flow or change how that flow is made. I would agree that intercepting the flow of a potential already there is a cop>1 but only if one could have the output. If there is no output the only benefit to that cop anything is the environment or system you use.

Lets change the system parameters and see if you idea nets anything useful. We are now in space. That same system you say is cop>1 is now rendered useless. It's cop is (<=0) It would still cause you to put energy in not matter how little to raise the ball to any reference point 5 feet from the start. But when the release happens you have nothing as a result. It would stay still. So that means that it is all dependent on that system you choose to let it enter into. You can not take responsibility for the environments contribution because you do nothing to make that environment work. So if the ball bounces one twice or twenty times you have nothing to do with that results because you disconnect from that object and have no way to harvest the energy to compare to your input. In effect you are establishing a cop for something that is beyond your reach. You are using or trying to use a term that was only put there to describe a device (heat exchanger) because it violated normal rules through the use of a super conducting liquid or method there of. If one was to do that one would need to know everything about the system you dropped the ball into. And I mean all the losses and associated costs of that system. Don't get frustrated man has tried to own everything they came along. I caused that or lifted that and now it is because of my input that I should claim responsibility for the outcome. even when i disconnect from the object. It doesn't work like that Aaron. And this is why we sit here rehashing old confrontations and going down the same road relentlessly. You haven't discovered anything new. Just used a term out of context and is trying to push that idea instead of the truth. The truth is ac and all it's forms is very very inefficient when used in the traditional sense. When used properly it can only be cop 1 at max. We are trying to compare the old way with the new and failed to adjust the scale at which we measure.

A charge is only capable of moving a certain distance based on it's density and connections to the surrounding network. Those connections are also based on it's density and the density of available dielectric connectors or medium which it is in between two distinct positions with both positions being charges that are unequal. Any deviation between the two charges determines the direction of flow of each charge. with the larger having more staying power and pulls the lower density charge twords it. When the charges are equal they pull together equally.

[Aaron]

conditional parameters

On Einstein: His theory is valid - and invalid. Under certain conditions his theory is working and the only current option possible to use. Under different conditions his theory is wrong. He is wrong about the Big Bang. He is wrong about E=MC^2, he is wrong about the thoughts of how a Black hole operates. He is wrong about the medium of the universe . . .

Thus I agree with you.

Aromaz,

I'm totally with you that it applies under different conditions and in others
it doesn't. Just like classical thermodynamics and even the "laws" of motion.
They only apply under certain parameters and outside of those parameters,
they don't apply.

But the problem I have with the "theory" of Einstein is that it implies
it is accurate across the board when in fact it does not.

The establishment for the most part will not agree that his "theories" are
conditional and by allowing it to remain a theory implies/claims that it is
completely and wholly accurate in all conditions.

At least with thermodynamics, there is closed system of equilibrium
thermodynamics that is taught widely in the books - and then at least
there is non-equilibrium thermodynamics for open dissipative systems that
govern open looped systems. That is amazing in itself that this branch
of thermodynamics even exists - yet a few of my friends that are
degreed physicists have never even heard of non-equilibrium
thermodynamics until I brought it to their attention and it changed their
entire viewpoint of physics as a whole.

Then they researched and found that non-equilibrium thermodynamics has
been working its way into almost every branch of the natural sciences
including sociology, biology, etc...

Now if the same could happen with relativity and the laws of motion,
we'd really be making progress! lol

[Aaron]

conservation of energy

You know thats really funny. What is convert anyways. Everything converts this charge into something. Weather it is potential to move with or anything else for that matter. Conversion will always involve losses on our scale but if one knew what the fundamental rules were that keep matter from flying apart one could look at that process and devise a way to harness that eternal movement to never attain a balance.

Jbignes,

Some people have a problem with Bearden because they are not able to
comprehend his work. I personally know people that have created over 1.0
cop systems simply from Bearden's theories - because they for the most
part are highly accurate.

A friend's partner helped design much of the communication systems for
the Apollo missions. In the early 90's I believe, they were at a meeting
where they met Bearden, were introduced to his theories and based on
Bearden's theories, they build some amplifiers that were WAY over 1.0
cop. So much so they actually entered into an agreement with a
power company conglomerate - that was probably 15 years ago.

Bearden calls himself a conceptualist. He conceived of some very
profound concepts and is able to convey them in a very sensible way
so that anyone with the wherewithal and enough sagacity to get it can
see that the man just plain makes sense - commons sense actually.
I don't believe a lot of the conspiracy stuff he talks about but I have
enough discernment to see what info of his makes sense and what info
doesn't apply to my goals and what info I just don't concern myself with.

I also think that he could explain his theories in 1/10 of the verbiage that
he normally uses but often, no exaggeration, his references in the
footnotes are LONGER than his own content. Anyone that wants to
judge Bearden, especially openly, should walk their own talk and actually
follow up on his references. The ones that have actually done this simply
don't have much room to say anything further against the man.

You're right about "conversion" (usually) involving losses along the way.
However, it needs to be put in context because there is no conservation
of energy - there is no changing of energy from one form to another.

It is a myth, a faulty paradigm that is a figment of the imagination and it
isn't about semantics. It is what it is and is anything but energy
transforming from one form to another.

In a closed loop system, there is no chance for the system to reset
itself with a new potential difference over and over. You start with
one potential difference and it steadily declines without having any
real resets.

It is all about having a dipole offer a potential difference, that is used
to instigate work, there are some losses normally and then ANOTHER
NEW POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE IS ESTABLISHED. That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Then,

That supplies the potential
for further work with losses and a NEW potential difference is established.

Each cycle of input is dissipated back to the vacuum. When the second
cycle happens, it is NOT the same potential, it is entirely new potential
that enters the system from the different and new establishment of
another potential difference.

Energy is not transforming or changing forms.

You lift a ball in the air and 100% of what you put in is 100% dissipated
by the time it either reaches its peak or it is let go. A new potential
difference is established (new height from ground), NEW potential
enters the system (gravitational potential), it hits the ground and
depending on the efficiency of the ball to rebound, it will bounce back
into the air (80-90% for the average "superball" - the Wham-O was 93%)
and when it bounces up - the moment it reaches its peak, 100% of the
input is dissipated into the vacuum. Then when it is let go to fall, NEW
gravitational potential enters the system, etc... The original lift that
we did and expended x joules to do so was 100% dissipated by the
time we let go of the ball (if our hand is on it at the peak) or is
100% dissipated when the ball reaches its peak (if we threw it in the air).

So, ZERO amount of our input potential every got stored in the ball. There
is no such thing as storing the potential. It simply dissipated, reestablished
a new potential difference (height/dipole), NEW potential enters, causes
work impact, dissipation, etc... then when the ball bounces back up,
a new potential difference is established, NEW potential enters does work
repeat.

There is a small dwindling down through losses on each successive
bounce. The average bouncing ball IF at 83% efficient in reaching 83%
of the height of the previous bounce is operating at a COP of about 7.0.
That is almost 35 bounces by lifting a 83% efficient bouncing ball to
the height of 1 meter and the ball weights 40 grams.

Add up all the joules in work done to lift that weight to each height of
every bounce and it will be 7 times more than was required to lift it
to the original 1 meter. It will be COP of 5.0 if you stop after the
12th or 13th bounce.

So, there is no such thing as conservation of energy, it doesn't change
forms or transform - on each cycle it is brand new potential that comes
in that is entirely different from the original work done to get the system
going.

The only transformation that the potential (or energy if the potential
moves from one potential difference to another causing work by resistance)
goes through is COMPLETE DISSIPATION before the new cycle begins.
It didn't change into other energy, it completely dissipated.

[Aromaz]

@Aaron; this is a bit off topic, but I will remain with:
I do agree with you on all points; except that Haramain does deserve some credit for his method of explanation. And in this case he was the original source of info.

As for the rest: My thinking of him is on the same level as with many Pastors and Priests. Somewhere between 0 Kelvin and 0 Celsius. Take the money out from their appearance as speaker - and they will not make a speech.

On Einstein: His theory is valid - and invalid. Under certain conditions his theory is working and the only current option possible to use. Under different conditions his theory is wrong. He is wrong about the Big Bang. He is wrong about E=MC^2, he is wrong about the thoughts of how a Black hole operates. He is wrong about the medium of the universe . . .

Thus I agree with you.

[Aaron]

oscillators, electrets, etc...

Unfortunately, I am not convinced by the practical reference you showed in the above video. I think of the oscilloscope ground clip for instance that probably still gave ground potencial to your circuit, I can only hope you were aware of that back then.
And the energy levels involved in your setup shown were in the pico or nanoJoule range.

I do not mean this was the case in your demo setup, I only say that at such very low energy levels like picoJoules, the experimenter are facing several possible pitfalls to "choose from". And I have no problem with "outside" energy sources that can be utilized, as long as they are not man-made.

Have you experienced at least some hundred milliJoules, not to mention a few Joules involved in such setups (as you showed in the above video) where no batteries are used?

Re on electrets: I fully agree, after making an electret like for instance by Mototaro Eguchi ( Electrets ) and shorting it periodically into (for instance) a battery or into a transformer etc then you surely have a working setup which gives a few Joule useful energy, "just out of nothing", for a certain period of time (for say from a few months to a few years, depending on the quality of the dielectric material), then it "depletes". Certainly, you can make several electrets to maintain the "process of generating energy" for sure.

So in such electrets "the killing the dipole" process is very very slow indeed. You have to use several scores of such electret setups to receive really useful quantity of energy for meeting even a very very moderate household's energy needs though.

I hope some day either the theory you mention or someone's else theory really really produces useful energy sources in practice that are enviroment friendly (do not use any battery or other harmful material).

rgds, Gyula

Hi Gyula,

The caps do the exact same thing with or without
the scope and I am familiar with how external power sources can
interfere as well as a scope.

That circuit is a feedback circuit where the output is going back to the
front isolated so that the front cap NEVER sees what is on the output.
So how does the front cap climb?

It is all about balancing the pressures of the input and output. Pressure
of the aetheric gas moving over the wires. When people talk about
matching impedance, they're probably do better without the jargon and
look at common sense analogies.

If a fan is in the window blowing OUT and all other windows are blocked,
it will pull air from outside the room. Let's say the door opens into the room
instead of opening by pulling it out away from the room. So close the door
just so the door edge barely touches the door jam by the latch. Let
go of the door and it pulls open and automatically gets to an open
distance that PERFECTLY corresponds to the open distance necessary
to let in the right amount of air that corresponds with the fan's ability
to blow out a certain amount of air. You're balancing the pressure or
the impedance of the system. If I closed the door just a tad bit less
than it opened by itself, it will pull a bit more load on the fan as it has
to pull air through a smaller hole (door opening). If I open it more than
it went by itself then the pressure moving past the door drops and the
system isn't as effective.

Making a circuit so that it automatically self adjusts the front and
back pressures in a way that it is intrinsic in the design of the circuit
and not by tuning it with a pot. And this is still completely different
than having the front and back locked together. The Velijko oscillator
does the same, it self adjusts the front and back and no matter how
high or low the pendulum swings, it is simply self adjusting to automatically
run at the highest efficiency possible - as it is intrinsic within the design.

With that particular circuit I showed, it has to operate within the voltage
range of the standing potential of the earth rods. So around 0.6v to 1v
at 33,000 but it proves the concept. And please understand this, because
it is very important, I think at least. There are multiple diodes all around
this circuit. The voltage drop on the diodes alone are GREATER than
the voltage in the caps. Yet the cap voltage passes through undisturbed
WITHOUT a drop and the diode still functions as a diode keeping the
voltage potential moving in one direction.

How do you pass x voltage through a diode with zero loss?
How do you pass x voltage through multiple diodes with zero loss?

What you mention about the electrets are true. However, the example
you use is closing the loop on those electrets by simply applying a load
directly to them. Closing the loop there DOES eventually force the
electret DIPOLE to decrease in its potential difference.

What I'm talking about is simply connecting a cap to the voltage potential
available at the terminals of the electret, removing it and applying that
newly created voltage potential in the "charged up" cap with a certain
amount of "charge" to a load - get the work out of it, then put the cap
back to the electret, "charge it up" and remove it from the electret and
apply to load, then put it back to the electret, charge it up remove and
apply to load repeat, repeat, repeat.

That doesn't close the loop on the dipole (electret) and doesn't cause it
to drop in potential difference itself. I'm talking about an open loop system
like a bucket and dipper system. The river is running by with infinite
potential. I don't build a dam to contain it. I simply take my dipper,
scoop out some water and put it in my bucket and repeat.

I do NOT want to apply a load with any significant impedances or
resistances directly to the electret or other dipole. I do NOT want to
kill the dipole, which would happen if I had "scores" of electrets connected
directly to a load trying to power the load directly from the electrets.
If you had a bunch of electrets - just apply a bunch of caps to "charge"
them up - remove the caps and apply to load - remove from load, apply
to electret, charge up, remove apply to load - repeat.

What I'm explaining are a few ways to take potential from a dipole,
put it to work without killing that source dipole.

A Bedini SSG already does this. It doesn't prevent the dipole from
reducing it's potential difference, but it does greatly slow it down and
it is a practical/useful example of a non-equilibrium system.

The Velijko oscillator and virtually every non-equilibrium system is
accomplishing this in one way or another.

[Aaron]

references

There can be no dispute about who, what, where and how of your own resources. Your resource is the person where you got the info from and it is correct in quoting that person.

There is also another point in relation; by following up and doing deeper research to verify weather your resource has the right info you should stumble accross the originator.

The person whom you learned it from is still to be honoured with your quote; however then if you have references of prior info; it is good practice to quote such. Krafft has published since early 1930's; however I will say Haramein (Not one of my favourite people; but . . .) does explain it in a manner which is understandable. Unlike Krafft et al.

I agree Aromaz. However, Lamare, myself and others acknowledge that
Einstein's theories are wrong. They have been proven wrong so many
times over it would take an encyclopedia to document it all. DePalma's
is probably the easiest that have been done and is probably easiest
for anyone to replicate. And there is no mass to energy conversion,etc...

When a theory is debunked, it no longer has the honor of being a theory,
it is simply a mistake. It doesn't even have the privilege of
reverting back to a hypothesis/postulation. Because at least with a
hypothesis, it hasn't been debunked yet.

I bring this up because Haramein is working out equations to essentially
make Einstein work. So anything predicated upon a faulty premise to begin
with (such as the theory of relativity), will in and of itself be faulty.
You can't make a faulty premise work, you just have to plain start over
with something else that makes more sense and/or has not yet
been debunked. It is better to build upon a fresh idea than to fix one
that is known to be riddled with errors.

Again, I agree you have to start somewhere - I just have a pet peeve
about these Johnny-come-lately "gurus" that are building a house on
a foundation of sand. And when they win awards for papers that are
simply paraphrasing other people's work that has been around for much
longer. They may have independently figured out the same stuff, but
being so pretentious as to actually believe they are the first to figure
certain things out that has already been in the literature for ages is
nonsense.

[Armagdn03]

You know thats really funny. What is convert anyways. Everything converts this charge into something. Weather it is potential to move with or anything else for that matter. Conversion will always involve losses on our scale but if one knew what the fundamental rules were that keep matter from flying apart one could look at that process and devise a way to harness that eternal movement to never attain a balance.

Take for instance Tesla when he made the first hydroelectric plant in Niagra Falls. He saw a potential in the falling of the water that could be harnessed in such a way that it only momentarily diverted the flow and tap that energy to induce movement in copper wires. Nothing was consumed in that method and it should be the same method he used to run his much later experiment of the Pierce arrow. Provide a source(attractor), shield it from the environment and only let it interact where you want a flow to happen to attract outside charges to that flow. Tap or redirect the flow on it's way to the source and walla pure clean energy for anyone, anywhere in limitless quantities(based on components ability to channel those charges via it's mass ratio). I mean we all suspect that the charges flow into the systems we create. Well there has to be a way to strip them charges off before they get to the source.

Perhaps Dr. Stiffler is trying to say look past the given and "common sense" and be specific on method. Its like a person touting the mantra "don't use up the energy you started with" and claim it is the path to free energy.

Not a Bearden fan personally, lost touch with reality. Or perhaps, lacks the ability to communicate his ideas effectively into real world application.

[Jbignes5]

You said it man!

You know thats really funny. What is convert anyways. Everything converts this charge into something. Weather it is potential to move with or anything else for that matter. Conversion will always involve losses on our scale but if one knew what the fundamental rules were that keep matter from flying apart one could look at that process and devise a way to harness that eternal movement to never attain a balance.

Take for instance Tesla when he made the first hydroelectric plant in Niagra Falls. He saw a potential in the falling of the water that could be harnessed in such a way that it only momentarily diverted the flow and tap that energy to induce movement in copper wires. Nothing was consumed in that method and it should be the same method he used to run his much later experiment of the Pierce arrow. Provide a source(attractor), shield it from the environment and only let it interact where you want a flow to happen to attract outside charges to that flow. Tap or redirect the flow on it's way to the source and walla pure clean energy for anyone, anywhere in limitless quantities(based on components ability to channel those charges via it's mass ratio). I mean we all suspect that the charges flow into the systems we create. Well there has to be a way to strip them charges off before they get to the source.

[Armagdn03]

Well I have time for one more post, so guess I will tick off a bunch of people.

Just what is 'Do Not Destroy the Dipole' anyway? Isn't that a cop out, common sense. Okay a battery can be considered a dipole and so can a permanent magnet, so saying we want a circuit that does not destroy it is saying what?
Well my take is it is saying we need a form of energy conversion in order to do our work and not use up the source (dipole). Really the statement is meaningless and says nothing about the approach.

If all the broadcasters of don't destroy the dipole understood it, then why not apply it? Many are very good mathematicians and granted may not be able to solder, but really, there are those that can and can follow instruction.

I get blasted from all sides and care less because it all comes back to energy conversion. Forget the dipole, convert form to different form.

I don't like the this PestWicked site as they have yet to say anything good about my direction or work so I can not bring myself to offer them anything worth value either.

Isn't that a cop out

You said it man!

[Jbignes5]

I'd say the medium of space is like matter. There are regions where it is like water, there are regions where it is like a gas and probably there are also regions where it is like a solid or even a plasma. That's what you would have to conclude if "it" is a fractal.

And then I would call "charges" "vortices". Now these vortices come in all kinds of shapes and sizes, but the most simple shape is the picture shown by Haramein, which I suspect would be what what we would call a free electron or a proton would look like.



If you would have something like a point vortex, then you would have to consider two things:

1. Pressure like waves propagating from one "elementary" vortex to the next and/or straigt line movement of the "elementary" vortices, which would be the electric field. In this way of propagating any rotational component can be neglected.

2. Elementary vortices moving around in circles and/or spirals trough space. With this, the rotational component is what gives you what we call the magnetic component.

Of course, both components are always present, but opposit vortices (charges) can cancel each other out, so at a certain distance, you can get a situation that only one of the two remains. And I think that answers your question.

I think we mean the same thing but the scales keep changing. Meaning you look deeper while I am looking at the original scale. My view on the charges is exactly your view. A self contained vortex always flowing or moving. But that is not much different then the whole charge I mention.

I agree with you on the matter no matter concept. Meaning that matter is a separation of the medium with a locked in elementary(natural) dielectric network and based on it's density it has certain "conductivity" to the medium on the other side. Density is so underused it this sense. Both the density of the medium in local space to the density of the matter that is displacing the medium in that space plus the density of the ambient charges in that space as well which by the way would be limitless because of the flow of the network already in place from the natural processes.

This leads me to the discussion of negative and positive charges. If one looked at the 3d version of the Sierpinski triangle from here one can see two distinct models of the same gross form. Here is the link again.

Sierpinski triangle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again try to focus on "Analogues in higher dimensions" Section. I believe these are two models of directive subcomponents of charges. Having the same gross form but two distinct different directions of the forms. What I have not worked out yet is what polarity they are and weather or not they would operate in a dynamic way or become static when paired. I am still in the process of working out the gross stuff and will eventually go for the smallest. In this case this is better because we can infer backwards in the fractal but to do that you need to pick a much larger section to get a picture of the fractal to work from. The more I know about the larger the easier it will be to determine the smaller.
Click the picture of the two models and get as close as you can to see the models in detail.

It could be we are looking at the physical(red) mixed with the energy(blue) to form a complete charge carrier. We all know energy can flow in sheets or basically any geometric form we like. What if the blue is just energy guided to stay inside and it forms boundries that are defined by the physical structure of the charge carrier.

They could also be polar pairs as well. With the inverse having a different direction when oriented in the same geometric pattern of the whole(pyramid) when the two are looked at like structures. Or it could be one is the container (red) of charges or the carrier and the other (Blue) is the charge conductor. One (red) obviously is surface area bound and the other (Blue) is more solid. This means one type is a container and the other passes the potential of that container. Although they both contain base charges to keep the matter bound in that form they are capable of holding(Red) or passing(Blue) much more.

It is gonna be a bit before I can figure this out but with your help and others like you and I we should have no problem in doing so.

[lamare]

So the medium of space is like water. With the charges being the driving force and the source of all energetic exchanges.

I'd say the medium of space is like matter. There are regions where it is like water, there are regions where it is like a gas and probably there are also regions where it is like a solid or even a plasma. That's what you would have to conclude if "it" is a fractal.

And then I would call "charges" "vortices". Now these vortices come in all kinds of shapes and sizes, but the most simple shape is the picture shown by Haramein, which I suspect that what we would call a free electron or a proton would look like.

Now I think I gave reference to the model which showed that in a magnetic field you have the lines of force but there is a cross field of the dieletric that creates shells as well. Lets say you have a point charge and you do the magnetic fields that extend from the point charge. Well there will be spherical shells around that point charge that are bunchings of the medium or dielectric, why? Because they are attracted to the smaller real charges that shell up around the bigger real charge(s) in the middle.

If you would have something like a point vortex, then you would have to consider two things:

1. Pressure like waves propagating from one "elementary" vortex to the next and/or straigt line movement of the "elementary" vortices, which would be the electric field. In this way of propagating any rotational component can be neglected.

2. Elementary vortices moving around in circles and/or spirals trough space. With this, the rotational component is what gives you what we call the magnetic component.

Of course, both components are always present, but opposit vortices (charges) can cancel each other out, so at a certain distance, you can get a situation that only one of the two remains. And I think that answers your question.