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

[lamare]

I intentionally prevent myself from using the term field for various
reasons - I like to stick with the concept of an ocean of swarming
potential that everything is engulfed in like a fish is in water.

Anyway, the "propagating potential field" is more along the lines
of what potential really is and below is a quote from Tom Bearden -
the waterfall analogy is pretty self evident:

You do make me curious about the reasons not to use the term field, because as far as I can tell the term "propagating field" would be a very accurate description for what you might call "an ocean of swarming potential that everything is engulfed in like a fish is in water" and a description that is in line with the textbooks, cause the only difference with the textbooks about "field theory" is a matter of how many details you choose to neglect....

Update: I mean, I really don't see why you would want to get into a collision course with the scientific community about the definition of what is what, if really all we are trying to say is: "Your force fields are dynamic, they are propagating, they are sources of energy! Take that into account!".

[Aaron]

dynamic fluid potential

Lamare,

I intentionally prevent myself from using the term field for various
reasons - I like to stick with the concept of an ocean of swarming
potential that everything is engulfed in like a fish is in water.

Anyway, the "propagating potential field" is more along the lines
of what potential really is and below is a quote from Tom Bearden -
the waterfall analogy is pretty self evident:

" Now suppose you suddenly place a potential on the surface of the plates
(between the two plates) of a battery. That potential takes off like a
scalded hog in both directions. It flows across the ions in the battery
between the plates in one direction, and simultaneously it flows out into
the external circuits to "push the charges" in the other direction.

In short, if you time things correctly, you can DEPHASE and DECOUPLE the
two currents in the battery powered system, simultaneously adding potential
energy to both of them, "for free". You can add potential to BOTH the
ions and the electrons. The ions can be moving backward in charging mode,
while the electrons will be driven in the opposite direction in the external
circuit --- in powering direction.

Before one gets bent out of shape about the potential being regauging and
all that, and free additional potential energy and all that, one should go
look up what the "gauge freedom" axiom of quantum field theory means. All
electrodynamicists --- and even the electrical engineers --- assume that
the potential energy of any Maxwellian system can be freely changed at will.
However, they usually assume you will be a gentleman and do it twice
simultaneously, and will also do it just exactly so that the two new free
EM forces produced in the system are equal and opposite. Well, that assumes
that you take in free excess potential energy to the system, but precisely
lock it up so that it cannot translate electrons and therefore push
current and do work in an external load. However, it continuously performs what is
called "internal work" in the system, in opposing directions but equal
magnitude. That work continually forms and maintains excess "stress
energy" in the system, and that is all.

So the first problem for a COP>1.0 system is how to break up that "stress
energy only" assumption. John's way is one way. He actually "splits" the
potential into two directional fields (which it is; see Whittaker 1903,
cited in numerous of my papers), one going in one direction to push the
ions in charging mode, and the other going in the other direction out into the
external circuit to push electrons in powering mode.

That's about as simple as it can be explained. At that point, one either
understands it or one doesn't.

Also, bear in mind that from any nonzero scalar potential phi, regardless
of how small in magnitude, you can collect as much energy as you wish, if you
just have enough charge available to intercept it. That's the simple
equation W = (phi)q, where W is the amount of energy collected in joules
from potential phi, by charges q in coulombs. For a given phi and a
desired W, just include the necessary q. A potential is a set of bidirectional
rivers of flowing energy, as proven by Whittaker in 1903. We do not have
to REPROVE that at all; it's already well known and accepted by every
electrodynamicist worth his salt.

Any potential is automatically a true negative resistor, since it is a
free harmonic set of bidirectional flows of EM energy (due to its dipolarity
and the broken symmetry of same; it takes the energy right out of the vacuum
via the broken symmetry of the source charge or dipolarity). Hence you can
collect as much energy from it as you wish, from its "flowing rivers of
energy", if you arrange for enough charges (buckets) to collect it (to
collect the water). Nothing says you have to use just one kind of charge
(the electron). You can use -- as Bedini does -- both the ions between the
plates and the electrons in the external circuit. And you can use them
both, and potentialize them both simultaneously with the same potential.
HOW MUCH EXCESS ENERGY YOU CATCH IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PHI AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE Q's.

There's no mystery as to how he makes a negative resistor, because ANY AND
EVERY DIPOLARITY AND POTENTIAL ARE ALREADY TRUE NEGATIVE RESISTORS. As is every charge. The energy flows are coming freely from the vacuum, via the proven (in particle physics, NOT in EE) broken symmetry of the source
charge and source dipole. Remember, the first requirement for an overunity
system or true negative resistor is TO GET OUT OF CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. If one cannot think outside those boxes, one will never get or understand overunity, because IT IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THOSE TWO BOXES.

Every charge in the universe is already a true negative resistor of the
purest and most definitive (and easily demonstrated experimentally) kind.
It freely absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, transduces
that into OBSERVABLE (real, detectable, usable) photons, and pours them out in
all directions in 3-space at the speed of light. One doesn't have to
reprove that; it's been proven in physics since 1957.

You want to make a true MACROSCOPIC negative resistor for peanuts? Just
lay a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet so that the E field of the cap
is at right angles to the H-field of the magnet. That optimizes EXH, which
is the expression for the Poynting energy flow S = f(EXH). That silly thing
sits there and steadily pours out real observable usable EM energy EXH at
the speed of light, with no OBSERVABLE electromagnetic energy input into
it. The fact that it is a continuous flow of energy is usually just "mumbled
away"; e.g., with some version of this quotation: "[Poynting's result]
implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not
parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all
macroscopic phenomena are static." [Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to
Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p.
44.]

Before one falls for that "static" nonsense, one must understand what
"static" really is. That's expressed beautifully by Van Flandern, as
follows: "To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings
of the term 'static'. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving
parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual
replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by
thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense,
and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are
essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of
transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. [Tom Van
Flandern, "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say," Physics
Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p.8-9. ]

From the Whittaker papers of 1903 and 1904, we have known for just about a
century that all static EM fields and potentials are in fact "static"
fields of Van Flandern's second kind --- analogous to an unfrozen waterfall.
There is a continuous bidirectional movement of an internal EM structure of
longitudinal waves inside (and comprising) all EM fields and potentials.
So the "static envelope" of the field exists, but the "inside" components are
in violent change and motion, in BOTH directions. Again, that's been known
and in the literature since 1903.

But that does not appear in the hoary old seriously flawed electrical
engineering, which continues to try to consider the static potential and
static field as a "frozen waterfall" analogy."

[lamare]

Actually, I don't believe in a static potential since it is a very dynamic
flowing aetheric fluid of mass free "charge" of both polarities. And the
use of the term potential literally means that when you have the
voltage potential, there is no work being done until "current" is caused.
Current being nothing more than the loss in a system.

The gravitational potential is a moving potential for example and the
only time work is done is when the positive potential causes a push on the
proton of mass causing a resistance.

The definition of potential and energy are all 100% incorrect in the
textbooks as there is no such thing as a static potential - the textbook
definitions are talking about an abstract concept because they don't
understand what potential even is.

In principle, you are right in that what you call potential is a more precise description of reality as what is written in the textbooks. Still, the textbook model is a good model to work with, as long as you stay within its limits, just like Newton still gives good results in mechanics. So, the point is that by applying a different meaning to an existing word in a different context, you are getting yourself into useless discussions about the meaning of a word, because both meanings are right within a certain context and/or model. The problem with that is that it hurts you, because it confuses people.

IMHO, you could avoid a lot of confusion by talking about a "potential field" instead, which also connects directly to the electric potential you mean, the electric field. That way, you not only avoid confusion, but you're also in line with more advanced "field theory" textbooks. And you can apply it to gravity too, which is actually one and the same thing as the electric field.

Update:

Let me go one step further, and do this correct. If you want to bring what you mean by potential in line with the textbooks, you would have to call it a "propagating potential field". Then you are completely in line with the textbooks, and you have three layers of models, with increasing level of detail.

1. Potential is just a static force -> Newtonian mechanics, Ohm-law like electronics, hydraulics and its electronic analogy as found in most textbooks.

2. "Potential Field" - a static field -> Recognition that potential is not bound to a conductor, but spread out in space. Classic field theory describes this and you can go a long way with that.

3. "Propagating Potential Field" -> Hey guys, what you have written in your textbooks about "field theory" goes a long way, but you have missed something. Your field is not static, it is dynamic, it is flowing, it is propagating, it is transporting energy. You need to update your models, guys, so you can take this into account!

So, when you are talking about "potential", what you mean IMHO is a "propagating potential field", which is just not the same thing as "potential" in the context of Newton derived science models.

[Aaron]

@HairBear

Ok, what is ideal about an open system? Are you suggesting an open system can harvest "vacuum energy" more efficiently than a closed system?

Hi HairBear,

Can you define in your own words the difference between a closed loop
equilibrium system and an open loop non-equilibrium system?

[HairBear]

In other words, locking the output to the input assumes a closed loop
system and ideally, we want an open one.

Ok, what is ideal about an open system? Are you suggesting an open system can harvest "vacuum energy" more efficiently than a closed system?

[Aaron]

open not closed

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?

In other words, locking the output to the input assumes a closed loop
system and ideally, we want an open one.

[Aaron]

dipole

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?

If your goal was to bombard something with electrons for example, it would
be highly desirable.

Any "ideology" I'd have here is transformable or is able to be evolved in
one way or another - always.

The reason I mention that they can manifest out of the vacuum,
which they can, is just to point out and define that all the "electrons"
are not limited to just that which is provided by the material of the circuit
itself.

The reason I mention more than we start with is simply a reference to
a gain. What good is the extra electrons? That is another topic, but
my point is just to throw out another concept valid concept that defies
the idea that capacitance is some specific finite amount of "electrons"
for example. Or even current - which is thought to be what is powering
the entire system, when it is really our measurement of the loss of
the circuit.

But a benefit of extra electrons, if they really exist and there is no proof
that they do, would be for example, if there are extra electrons available
that didn't have to be supplied by the circuit, they would cause extra
resistance during their jiggle dance in an inductive resistor circuit for
example meaning more heat would be measurable than could be
accounted for by the measurable watt per time.

And if the circuit was built as a non-equilibrium circuit meeting all the
basic parameters of one, then the extra amount of electrons does not
have to be proportionately related to the dipole's potential difference
during the powering of a load. Or for example, the battery or other source
dipole could maintain a certain potential difference or voltage, yet
there could be an increase in measured current at a current sensing
resistor. Meaning that measuring the current can show more current than
what is being instigated by the power source.

[Jbignes5]

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?

Yes I agree Hairbear. Electrons are actually non existant. There is only a shell that gets formed from the wake of the wave being radiated from matter. This shell is actually a boundry between the charges that collect around a static potential provided by matter(neutral) only passing the potential of the real charges inside of matter much like iron passes a magnetic field. If you could imagine a bucky ball or Buckminster Fuller around matter like the atom. At every intersection of the lines there is a 90 degree radiative line coming out of it. like a quasi pom pom. This is the virtual connection to the source charges inside of all matter. The shells are tiered from highest potential to lowest on the outside of the shells that can be maintained by the sources charge potential.

These shells are pure charges separated by a dielectric of the medium of all spaces. This medium is so fine that it passes through even matter it is that small. When organized which only takes potential static charges to organize it forms very very fractal based connections. These are not direct connections but a dielectric one. This is the connection. A conductor of not real charges but is motivated to organize to become a super highway of real charges. meaning the charges actually are attracted weakly to the conductors and visa versa. But it is an attraction none the less. This guides the charges and they can bind to the original host charges or with enough force can pass right through the matter or even bind to the shell of the atom making it more energetic.

The electron is a myth created by men who did not understand the simplicity of the method that nature uses to power her machine. It's all one big system and there can never be an outside of that system. Meaning if space is involved it has to have the whole shebang to work. So to the dudes who proclaim open systems that is as false as there is an electron. What you don't include in your system is everything outside of that "system" of yours and to tell you the truth that is as misleading as electron theories or any other that is so complicated to understand when you look at the outside of that "system". Proof the eternal spin of the atom.

Let me pose this. If you have to make up rules thats fine but when you have to modify those rules to fit in larger or smaller scales then those rules are voided. Obviously the extra rules are to modify the current set because of a translation error. It all comes down to this. We all live in this space if I make a "System" then it should include all of that universe and the rules that apply to everything in it in that category because that is what nature does.

As for the twinkling Aaron is talking about I had a lot of time to think about that. If there is a network allowing charges to move very long distances without deviation then obviously the twinkling is just them either bumping a tad from the path and slowing down for a brief instance in time or they are just escaping from the network and fading into the background medium of that space.

[HairBear]

Yes but electrons can also manifest right out of the vacuum as do other
"particles" and don't necessarily have to come from the copper or other
materials themselves even though most of the "current" is from the electrons
supplied by the wire. We can wind up with more than we started with.

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?

[Slovenia]

Schematics

Wow, I'd like to see those schematics too myself!!

Mike,

Did you post schematics? You mentioned this to me on Skype but I
didn't see it.

[Aaron]

schematic

Mike,

Did you post schematics? You mentioned this to me on Skype but I
didn't see it.

[Aaron]

electron movement

It is the charges that move and nothing else in matter because the matter has formed around the charge carriers in a static fashion holding them into place.

Not sure if I follow you there but the electrons perform a jiggling
up and down dance down the line at the rate of a few inches per hour
while the heaviside flow is about light speed.

Drude model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Aaron]

manifestation of electrons

So, what I think this flow in this ether does, is push the charge carriers already existing in our circuits around. So, it acts like the wind on a sailboat...

Yes but electrons can also manifest right out of the vacuum as do other
"particles" and don't necessarily have to come from the copper or other
materials themselves even though most of the "current" is from the electrons
supplied by the wire. We can wind up with more than we started with.

[Aaron]

what potential is

One of the most important things to realize is that the electric field is the cause for currents to occur. Aaron calls this "potential", but IMHO it is better to call it "the electric field", because that's what it is. The term "potential" suggests we are talking about a static force akin to "pressure" in hydraulics, the Newtonian analogy we basically use in our normal circuit analysis.

There is a significant difference between the static analogy we are used to work with and the actual physical situation. In the actual situation the force we consider to be a static pressure-like force is a dynamic force, it's a flow of energy. To call this flow of energy "potential" is confusing IMHO, because a propagating electric field is just not the same thing as a pressure-like "potential".

I explain this in my article as follows:
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

Actually, I don't believe in a static potential since it is a very dynamic
flowing aetheric fluid of mass free "charge" of both polarities. And the
use of the term potential literally means that when you have the
voltage potential, there is no work being done until "current" is caused.
Current being nothing more than the loss in a system.

The gravitational potential is a moving potential for example and the
only time work is done is when the positive potential causes a push on the
proton of mass causing a resistance.

The definition of potential and energy are all 100% incorrect in the
textbooks as there is no such thing as a static potential - the textbook
definitions are talking about an abstract concept because they don't
understand what potential even is.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Forgot to say THIS IS ONLY A COP1

Mike