Are we the only creation?

[Gab]

How will this free energy work?

This is how it works--

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other fuels."

--Nikola Tesla

The idea which was being explored in the 19th century before Einstein took science on a wild goose chase is that we are not living within a dead airspace but we are living in a sea of electro-magnetic energy, which they called the ether.  How do you get a huge effect of energy output from  a small input?  Modern science says a perpetual motion machine is impossible because it assumes we are dealing with a closed system.  But these scientists have learned how to tap into an open system of an abundant energy source.  Tesla was literally pulling huge quantities of electrical energy out of the air. 

But that doesn't even approach explaining anything about how it works.  You speak so authoritatively that this is the case and that this will be a reality, but you can't seem to actually tell me how it works.  I mean no offense by this, but I kind of get the sense that you don't understand how the magnetic induction of electrical current works.  I won't go into the precise scientific details, but electrical current can only be induced through a magnetic field that changes with respect to the surface area of the object into which an electrical current is induced.  You can't just hold up a wire and, hey presto, get an electrical current in it just from the presence of a magnetic field; the field must be constantly changing.

You can see how primitive our current science is by its lack of understanding of gravitational effects.  Maxwell had set the stage,  and others were just starting the exploration of electro-magnetic forces, when Einstein came along with his jury rigged and plagiarized theories which are really part of an older philosophy, and not true science.  If the powers that be didn't actually commission this high school drop out patent clerk to do this [along with his mathematician wife who probably did all the mathematics, he gave her his nobel prize money after they divorced], then they certainly took great advantage of it by using it to trample on the scientists who were doing the real work in science at the time.  When they tried to give him the nobel prize for relativity, the scientists of the time raised such a hue and cry, they could not do it.  It's not his theory, after all--simple as that.

No offense, but... I don't even know what you're saying here.  Einstein's theories were "part of an older philosophy"?  Einstein's theories were so revolutionary and new that he is now regarded as the father of modern physics.  Yes, there was special and general relativity - both of which have stood the test of time and independent tests of their predictions - but the extent of his contributions are much more wide-ranging than that, including wave-particle duality, cosmology, and the behavior of an entire class of particles called bosons.  He predicted that light should bend around objects with large gravitational force, and it does.  He predicted that certain particle phenomena should be seen at very low temperatures, and they do.   He introduced the concept of a photon, which has proven accurate.  He is lauded as the greatest scientific mind of the twentieth century by pretty much everyone.

Thus, whole generations of scientists were taught that certain things were impossible, and we were sentenced to 100 years of  fossil fuel ingestion which made a small group of people richer than Creosus.   If you can start to see science as just another means of political and economic control, you will understand.  So we now teach new generations of students that we are living in a world of scarcity [instead of the world of abundance that we know is the hallmark of our God] and certain things just cannot be done.  We teach them that a 'perpetual motion' machine is impossible while we are sitting on one.  It's hilariously funny.  I'll stop laughing when the earth stops revolving around the sun.

The name Einstein has become synonymous with the word, 'genius'.  I look forward to the day when the name is synonymous with, 'the joke's on you.'

But perpetual motion is impossible, at least with what we know now.  The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws there is.  It's difficult to explain in simple terms precisely why this is the case, but it suffices to say that it fundamentally comes from the statistical behavior of particles and the improbableness of uniformity at a large scale.  This isn't "scientists keeping the masses down"; this is just a consequence of everything we know to date about the behavior of fundamental particles.  Even if it were the case that you could derive electricity from thin air with the help of the magnetic field, it would still be the case that any transfer of energy will result in at least some of that energy being lost to entropy.  You can certainly have a source of energy that will outlive the Earth, but that's not perpetual motion.

Among other things, tapping into the electro-magnetic field surrounding Earth has already been mentioned and we've heard the comment in various forms, that lightening from an average thunderstorm over the city of New York releases enough energy to provide all the electrical needs of New York for about two years.

The only power we lack is brain power.

Saying that lightning from an average thunderstorm releases that much energy isn't really telling the whole story.  The sun releases enough energy to power the entire world.  That doesn't mean we can do anything with it.  Turning raw energy into useful and reliable energy is no small feat, although there is research underway as I said to utilize the energy of the sun in the way that plants do, which I think is quite promising.

[Molly]

But perpetual motion is impossible, at least with what we know now.

I also do not believe the lie that says the earth is a perpetual motion machine therefore the guy saying this has some kind of special theory on perpetual motion.

So, if you swallowed that lie, then it certainly is not me with the problem.

It's attitudes like this that are going to soon make America a third world country.  You want to nit pick about the phrase perpetual motion?  I'll use the phrase overunity instead.  You say that the motion of the planets is not perpetual motion enough for you?  It is an example of a mechanical system that has been and will be running forever, especially from your points of view.

I've just decided that I will not buy another car until it contains this new technology with a total non reliance on oil products.  I don't expect to have to wait that long.  But I will probably have to do something I vowed never to do--buy a Japanese car.


Kohei Minato and the Japan Magnetic Fan Company: a maverick inventor's breakthrough electric motor uses permanent magnets to make power -- and has investors salivating

by John Dodd


When WE first got the call from an excited colleague that he'd just seen the most amazing invention -- a magnetic motor that consumed almost no electricity -- we were so skeptical that we declined an invitation to go see it. If the technology was so good, we thought, how come they didn't have any customers yet?


We forgot about the invitation and the company until several months later, when our friend called again.


"OK," he said. "They've just sold 40,000 units to a major convenience store chain. Now will you see it?"


In Japan, no one pays for 40,000 convenience store cooling fans without being reasonably sure that they are going to work.


...

Looking carefully at the rotor, we see that it has over 16 magnets embedded on a slant -- apparently to make Minato's machines work, the positioning and angle of the magnets is critical. After she kicks the wheel into life, it keeps spinning, proving at least that the design doesn't suffer from magnetic lockup.


She then moves us to the next device, a weighty machine connected to a tiny battery. Apparently the load on the machine is a 35kg rotor, which could easily be used in a washing machine. After she flicks the switch, the huge rotor spins at over 1,500 rpms effortlessly and silently. Meters show the power in and power out. Suddenly, a power source of 16 watts or so is driving a device that should be drawing at least 200 to 300 watts.



Nobue explains to us that this and all the other devices only use electrical power for the two electromagnetic stators at either side of each rotor, which are used to kick the rotor past its lockup point then on to the next arc of magnets. Apparently the angle and spacing of the magnets is such that once the rotor is moving, repulsion between the stators and the rotor poles keeps the rotor moving smoothly in a counterclockwise direction. Either way, it's impressive.


Next we move to a unit with its motor connected to a generator. What we see is striking. The meters showed an input to the stator electromagnets of approximately 1.8 volts and 150mA input, and from the generator, 9.144 volts and 192mA output. 1.8 x 0.15 x 2 = 540mW input and 9.144 x 0.192 = 1.755W out.


.....



Minato's motors consume just 20 percent or less of the power of conventional motors with the same torque and horse power. They run cool to the touch and produce almost no acoustic or electrical noise. They are significantly safer and cheaper (in terms of power consumed), and they are sounder environmentally.


The implications are enormous. In the US alone, almost 55 percent of the nation's electricity is consumed by electric motors. While most factory operators buy the cheapest motors possible, they are steadily being educated by bodies like NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) that the costs of running a motor over a typical 20-year lifespan comprise a purchase price of just 3 percent of the total, and electricity costs of 97 percent. It is not unusual for a $2,000 motor to consume $80,000 of electricity (at a price of .06 cents per kilowatt hour).



.....



Minato's invention and its ability to use remarkably less power and run without heat or noise make it perfect for home appliances, personal computers, cellphones (a miniature generator is in the works) and other consumer products.


The magnetic motor will be cheaper than a standard motor to make, as the rotor and stator assemblies can be set into plastic housings, due to the fact that the system creates very little heat. Further, with the motor's energy efficiency, it will be well suited for any application where a motor has limited energy to drive it. While development is still focused on replacing existing devices, Minato says that his motor has sufficient torque to power a vehicle.



With the help of magnetic propulsion, it is feasible to attach a generator to the motor and produce more electric power than was put into the device. Minato says that average efficiency on his motors is about 330 percent.


Mention of Over Unity devices in many scientific circles will draw icy skepticism. But if you can accept the idea that Minato's device is able to create motion and torque through its unique, sustainable permanent magnet propulsion system, then it makes sense that he is able to get more out of the unit than he puts in in terms of elctrical power. Indeed, if the device can produce a surplus of power for longer periods, every household in the land will want one.


http://www.japaninc.com/article.php?articleID=1302

[Paul Hazelwood]

It's attitudes like this that are going to soon make America a third world country.  You want to nit pick about the phrase perpetual motion?  I'll use the phrase overunity instead.  You say that the motion of the planets is not perpetual motion enough for you?  It is an example of a mechanical system that has been and will be running forever, especially from your points of view.

Nit picking over a lie?  Nope.

[Molly]

It's attitudes like this that are going to soon make America a third world country.  You want to nit pick about the phrase perpetual motion?  I'll use the phrase overunity instead.  You say that the motion of the planets is not perpetual motion enough for you?  It is an example of a mechanical system that has been and will be running forever, especially from your points of view.

Nit picking over a lie?  Nope.

Get back to me with your proof or relevance when the solar system stops moving.

[Molly]

No offense, but... I don't even know what you're saying here.  Einstein's theories were "part of an older philosophy"?  Einstein's theories were so revolutionary and new that he is now regarded as the father of modern physics.

If Einstein's theory of relativity was so new and revolutionary,  why didn't he receive the Nobel prize for it?  Ans:  the scientific community of the time would not allow it because it was neither new nor revolutionary.

Here's what the inventor of A/C [alternating current] electricity --that miracle that happens every time you flick the light switch in your house--has to say about Einstein--and I'm sure he was being more polite than he would have preferred--

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

The theory of relativity is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king - its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists not scientists.

--Nikola Tesla NY Times 7/11/1935

[Molly]

Among other things, tapping into the electro-magnetic field surrounding Earth has already been mentioned and we've heard the comment in various forms, that lightening from an average thunderstorm over the city of New York releases enough energy to provide all the electrical needs of New York for about two years.

The only power we lack is brain power.

Throughout space there is energy - It is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork (cosmic wheel) of nature. So astounding are the facts in this connection that it would seem as though the Creator himself had electrically designed this planet.


--Nikola Tesla

[Gab]

It's attitudes like this that are going to soon make America a third world country.  You want to nit pick about the phrase perpetual motion?  I'll use the phrase overunity instead.  You say that the motion of the planets is not perpetual motion enough for you?  It is an example of a mechanical system that has been and will be running forever, especially from your points of view.

It's not a nitpick.  It's a fundamental distinction.  Perpetual motion describes a machine that may be started and which will then do work forever without ever requiring any additional energy input.  A machine that requires input is by definition not in perpetual motion, even if there is a limitless supply of fuel.  The phrase "do work" refers to the situation where a transfer of energy occurs, such as lifting up a weight (the potential energy of the weight increases, and this energy comes from the machine lifting it up).  The motion of the planets is not "perpetual motion" as the term is understood in terms of a machine that does work; the planets are not doing any work.  In this respect, the phrase "perpetual motion" is actually a bit of a misnomer; a better term might be "perpetual work".

What I want is for people to understand what can and cannot be done.  There are many forms of resources that are vastly more abundant than fossil fuels.  I absolutely think it's fantastic the work that people are doing to tap into these forms of energy, as they are less polluting than fossil fuels as well.  I just want people to understand the science behind it, because I see a lot of people acting as though if we just tried hard enough we can create something that creates more energy than it requires for its functioning.  We can't.  This is an obstacle to be worked around, not overcome.

As the inventor in your article says, he has not broken the second law of thermodynamics; it is simply the case that the energy output comes from a source other than man-made electrical power.  If his invention succeeds, all the more power to him.  I think you are incorrectly taking my words as if to say that I don't want people to succeed, whereas I am not; I am merely stating limitations that must be contended with.  If I wanted to climb a cliff, you would surely think it rather silly if I decided to do so by attempting to jump up and then hoping that I defy gravity.  Attempting to build a machine that outputs more energy than it requires for functioning is on the same level.  We have to harness nature to do some of the work for us if we want to receive a net energy gain from our perspective from a machine.

If Einstein's theory of relativity was so new and revolutionary,  why didn't he receive the Nobel prize for it?  Ans:  the scientific community of the time would not allow it because it was neither new nor revolutionary.

Er, he did, in 1921, at which time he received a blanket Nobel Prize for all of his contributions to theoretical physics.  Although his theory of relativity is now his best-known work, he also contributed many other things, as I said, such as work on the photoelectric effect (which was singled out as an especially impactful piece of work).  His theory of relativity was met with controversy at its introduction not because it was nothing new, but because it was so new that people thought he was off his rocker.  He singlehandedly took the hallowed scientific assumption of absolutes, in place ever since Newton put together his laws of motion centuries earlier, and demolished it in one fell swoop.

If you want vindication for his theory of relativity and of the equivalence of matter and energy, look no further than the fission of any atom in a nuclear power plant, an event which would not be possible were it not for Einstein's work.  Einstein's major work has all been vindicated through repeatable scientific experiments that proved the predictions of his theories to be correct.  For example, light has been observed to bend around large celestial objects with a high gravitational force.  Score one for general relativity.  High-speed short-lived particles have been observed to have a much longer lifespan than they ought to using Newtonian mechanics.  Score one for special relativity.  He has gained his status as an unparalleled genius precisely because his contributions and theories have been found to withstand scientific rigor, and consequently laid the groundwork for much of the future developments in physics in the 20th century.

Here's what the inventor of A/C [alternating current] electricity --that miracle that happens every time you flick the light switch in your house--has to say about Einstein--and I'm sure he was being more polite than he would have preferred--

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

The theory of relativity is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king - its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists not scientists.

--Nikola Tesla NY Times 7/11/1935

That comment was made during the time at which the theory of relativity was met with disbelief and at which time experiments had not been performed to conclusively prove its correctness.  Einstein's vindication quite literally came in with explosive force upon the detonation of the first nuclear bomb.  That he is now given the highest praise for his work is not a conspiracy - it is because he was proven to be absolutely right on nearly all counts.  Nikola Tesla, regardless of the contributions he might have made, was absolutely dead wrong when he said that.

[Molly]

As the inventor in your article says, he has not broken the second law of thermodynamics; it is simply the case that the energy output comes from a source other than man-made electrical power.

There you go.  You are starting to understand.  These are open systems which use the principles of electro-magnetism which God gave us for free and in unlimited abundance.  Hence free energy.

Er, he did, in 1921, at which time he received a blanket Nobel Prize for all of his contributions to theoretical physics.

Ha!  They don't mention relativity do they?  When has a scientist ever received the Nobel prize for a discovery not mentioned?  That would be never.  They didn't mention it because they couldn't get away with it.  The theory wasn't his own.  He just jury rigged the theories of scientists before him and published it.  Take a look at the history of science.  We have Fermi and others to thank for the fission of an atom, not Einstein.  Einstein is no more a genius than my next door neighbor.  As far as laying the ground work for 20th century physics, I'll give you that.  He helped them all become mostly useless and ignorant.

Tesla, on the other hand, invented the 20th century.  .



To say that in the presence of large bodies that space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that Something can act upon Nothing. I for one refuse to subscribe to such a view.


--Nikola Tesla

[Paul Hazelwood]

It's attitudes like this that are going to soon make America a third world country.  You want to nit pick about the phrase perpetual motion?  I'll use the phrase overunity instead.  You say that the motion of the planets is not perpetual motion enough for you?  It is an example of a mechanical system that has been and will be running forever, especially from your points of view.

Nit picking over a lie?  Nope.

Get back to me with your proof or relevance when the solar system stops moving.

Proof?  Spin a top on the floor and watch it slow down and stop and then you will understand the same principal of the earths rotation applied within it's own atmosphere to objects with mass and frictional forces presents something you don't even understand.

If you understood it, you would see the crack pots lie for what it is.


Get back to me when you can "explain" and demonstrate how to spin the top, make it seemingly turn forever and power a car with it so that it cn do something more useful than entertain a child, or spin in a glass bulb and look cool.

[Molly]

I just did with Kohei Minato's amazing magnetic motor.   It's not forever but it's going in the right direction.  Lead, follow, or get out of the way.





Tesla taps Panasonic for Model S batteries
October 6, 2009 | Camille Ricketts | Comments | Greentech Media has broken news that electric vehicle heavyweight Tesla Motors has chosen Panasonic to supply the battery packs for its Model S sedan, its more affordable model, still in development — this, according to anonymous sources at Panasonic.

This slipped out less than a week after Panasonic's announcement that it has discovered a way to bind lithium ion batteries traditionally used in personal computers into packs suitable for powering cars. The Japanese company's foray into the automotive market gained momentum last December when it purchased Sanyo, one of the biggest lithium-ion battery makers in the world. But even before then, it teamed with Toyota Motors in a joint venture called Panasonic EV Energy.



The Model S will minimally require battery packs of 5,500 lithium-ion cells, capable of carrying the car 160 miles per charge, at least. Tesla says 8,000-cell upgrades will also be available to push this range to 230 or 300 miles.

When it comes to the EV business, Panasonic faces competition from other major electronics corporations like Sony, Samsung, LG and BYD, and newer entries like Johnson Controls and recently-public A123Systems. Considering this field, Tesla's blessing could be a big win for Panasonic. It could also give Tesla an advantage, as Panasonic has said its existing battery assembly lines will allow it to churn out automotive products faster and cheaper than others.

http://green.venturebeat.com/2009/10/06/tesla-taps-panasonic-for-model-s-betteries/

[Paul Hazelwood]

I work for ford, that has hybrids that already use the lithium ion cells,  there is nothing new here. The issue is making it out to be something it is not.

A more efficient electric motor is not advancing perpetual motion or anything of the kind.   This electric motor has to have an external power source, it simply uses what we already know more efficiently and I am all for that.


Why do teslas cars have to be plugged in? Where is this great car that is self powered if he knows how to just stick an antenna up in the air and draw all the electrons to it? In fact why must he use the technology of another company?


None of this has anything to do with spinning a top or the rotation of the earth.  It has to do with something that has to have a power source external to the device and it simply uses that power more efficiently.

Thats great, but when it comes to taking the principals of the earths rotation and applying it to an automobile,  this is not what is happening here.

So what explaination do you have for the technology that must exist for a selfcontained car that never has to have gasoline and never has to be plugged in to an electrical socket?

[Molly]

So what explaination do you have for the technology that must exist for a selfcontained car that never has to have gasoline and never has to be plugged in to an electrical socket?

I love Ford and am a loyal customer.  I have been looking at their hybrid which seems really nice.

But, this Tesla is a totally electric car.  That means at today's rates you can go for about 230 miles for 5 dollars.  Now if that technology is available, why wouldn't every car manufacturer go for it and end our reliance on oil once and for all?  Plus if you are generating your own electricity with wind/solar, now you are no longer reliant on the electric company. 

This new electric car does not seem to have any degradation in performance, Zero to 60 in 3.8 seconds.  The only drawback is the price because it is a start up company, but they have already turned a profit, so that will change.

Tesla himself invented an electric car and built a prototype in the 1930's.  Why did we have to wait 80 years to be able to buy it?  I"m sure if Tesla invented it, there was something spectacular under the hood [they didn't have lithium batteries in those days] but since all  his work has been classified and disappeared, we will never know.  So we hobble along trying to slowly catch up to technology that was invented 100 years ago...

Still, I look forward to the day when the world will be able to plug into God for all our energy needs.



"Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine."

--Nikola Tesla

[Paul Hazelwood]

So what explaination do you have for the technology that must exist for a selfcontained car that never has to have gasoline and never has to be plugged in to an electrical socket?

I love Ford and am a loyal customer.  I have been looking at their hybrid which seems really nice.

But, this Tesla is a totally electric car.  That means at today's rates you can go for about 230 miles for 5 dollars.  Now if that technology is available, why wouldn't every car manufacturer go for it and end our reliance on oil once and for all?  Plus if you are generating your own electricity with wind/solar, now you are no longer reliant on the electric company. 

This new electric car does not seem to have any degradation in performance, Zero to 60 in 3.8 seconds.  The only drawback is the price because it is a start up company, but they have already turned a profit, so that will change.

Tesla himself invented an electric car and built a prototype in the 1930's.  Why did we have to wait 80 years to be able to buy it?  I"m sure if Tesla invented it, there was something spectacular under the hood [they didn't have lithium batteries in those days] but since all  his work has been classified and disappeared, we will never know.  So we hobble along trying to slowly catch up to technology that was invented 100 years ago...

Well, there is a mystery that I see beyond the physical molly,  while the conspiracy theorists contemplate the modern world government no one can really fully explain how the pyramids were built.   

There is only speculation, what government supressed that? I suspect there is a vast amount of scientific knowledge contained there if we actually knew the intricate details.  According to modern "intelligence" the stones fit with a precision that is unknown to our knowledge of how they could have managed that in that time period.


As far as nikolas inventions and the supression of his technology.  Let's try to at least be clear that since we do not actually have any of his documents we are at the mercy of what we may want to believe and that will embellish anything we might speculate on.

While it is "believable" that the government has suppressed information that would save the world.  It is also "believable" that there is  mostly hype behind the inventions that seem purely magical when it comes to gathering energy with nothing more than some wire coils and antenna to the degree to propel an electric car at 90 mph in the 1930's.

There is also another aspect, one few would believe, but one I think is believable if you can get past the constant shroud of evil that our government gets painted to be.

Perhaps nikola's inventions are of such a magnitude that it makes the hydrogen bomb look like a firecracker and the safety of the planet , not just the united states, would benefit from never knowing how to use such power.  I wonder if the world could handle such power responsibly?    It is an easy answer.

While people can say what they want and believe what they want based on what they can find wrong, the united states tries to go the direction of godliness as much as people would like to tear it down.   Perhaps we want more for the world than the world can manage to want for itself.  While people rail on about the ills of occupancy the intent is freedom, people can shake their fists all they want.  I think within our own borders can be seen the intent  of goodness.

What do we suffer from the most though in that pursuit?


Imperfection.   While we strive for perfection, I for one as an american will not apologize for a flaw we did not ask for.

Still, I look forward to the day when the world will be able to plug into God for all our energy needs.

If we disagree in most things, I agree here.

[reFORMer]

"Wisdom," (a "darling little mother..." [Pv 8:30] "...delighting [cavorting] with the sons of mankind..." [v.31]) which is what Christ is made unto us, is God in a feminine relationship with human persons.

Proverbs 8:12: "I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions."

Proverbs 8:21: "That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures."

[Cardinal]

"Wisdom," (a "darling little mother..." [Pv 8:30] "...delighting [cavorting] with the sons of mankind..." [v.31]) which is what Christ is made unto us, is God in a feminine relationship with human persons.

:cloud9: Amen, that He is.......El Shaddai as the "hen"........Blessings.....