Nikola Tesla Unlimited Free Energy Forever [zero-point energy doco]

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


How or why is it "destructive"?

Do you mean that extracting the energy disrupts the fabric of space-time in some kind of dangerous way?

Or just that spooky people will try to destroy you if you try?

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

How or why is it "destructive"?

Do you mean that extracting the energy disrupts the fabric of space-time in some kind of dangerous way?

Or just that spooky people will try to destroy you if you try?

Affirmative on both counts.
Space annihilation is a dangerous game.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


As for the first point, I really don't see why. If every cubic centimeter of space supposedly has 10**137J of energy, or whatever astronomical number, I don't see the harm in extracting a tiny part of that to use in our machines.

As for the second point - are you speaking from personal experience?

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

As for the first point, I really don't see why. If every cubic centimeter of space supposedly has 10**137J of energy, or whatever astronomical number, I don't see the harm in extracting a tiny part of that to use in our machines.

As for the second point - are you speaking from personal experience?

ZPE may well be an astronomical figure, however drawing close to / or less than 100Kwh can inadvertently
have devastating consequences.
Yes the dangers to self and peripheral individuals is from personal experience,
which I rather not elaborate.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


So you have personally witnessed 100Kwh being extracted from the vacuum, you are admitting that it is possible then?

And I'm sure you realize, saying "No don't do it, it's too dangerous - but I can't tell you why!" means nothing...

reply to post by cupocoffee

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did.

You're just a tad dense.

If an ATS member does have a working overunity device, and he wants to then prove it to the rest of us, how should he go about doing that?

If I had a working over-unity device, you can bet I would not be satisfied with simply building a gimmick. I wouldn't be paying for electricity, for starters.

What sort of evidence could he show us that would prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt? A Youtube video?

The proof is in the pudding. If I claim to have developed a method of creating full-color holograms in ambient lighting conditions - the proof will be the hologram, itself - the end result of the claim.

The claim is that one can receive more energy out of these devices than put into them - via some method. The proof will be in the existence and utility of that energy.

We have a process for converting sunlight to electricity - it is being used to an effect.

We have ways of converting various liquid fuels into electricity through catalyst structures (fuel cells) - and those are being used to an effect.

I can take a trip down to the local flying model hot-spot and watch hobbyists display their creations and its capabilities. I can go to trade shows and see the works of silver smiths, hobby electrical engineers, cattle breeders, botanists, etc.

True - not everything you see at the fair is as advertised .... but it's much more difficult to perpetuate a scam when you are at trade fairs that attract those who can be considered peers in the respective field.

You didn't answer my question.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Yes, I did.

You're just a tad dense.

No, you have not answered my questions at all.

People want proof that these devices work, so HOW do we prove it?

What sort of evidence could an ATS member possibly post in an ATS thread that would prove that these devices work beyond any shadow of a doubt?

Patents?

Schematics?

Books?

Video series?

Yahoo groups for builder/testers?

Open-source kits?

Youtube videos?

No, these are not considered sufficient proof. People like Bedini and Bearden have already done all that, and it's still not considered sufficient proof.

So, what then? What sort of evidence will prove it to everyone here beyond any shadow of a doubt?

If an ATS member does have a working overunity device, and he wants to then prove it to the rest of us, how should he go about doing that?

If I had a working over-unity device, you can bet I would not be satisfied with simply building a gimmick. I wouldn't be paying for electricity, for starters.

Okay, good. So you build something that works and take your house off the grid with it.

HOW would you then prove to the rest of us beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have a working overunity device powering your house?

Make a video and post it up on Youtube? No, people will just accuse you of hoaxing. Using hidden batteries or wires or other tricks to deceive. Small armies of skeptic/debunkers will come into the thread and start chanting "Hoaxer! Con man! Snake oil salesman! Fraud!".

So, what then? How do you then prove to everyone that you are NOT hoaxing, that you are NOT a fraud, and the device really does work as you say it does?

The claim is that one can receive more energy out of these devices than put into them - via some method. The proof will be in the existence and utility of that energy.

Right. So in this case, the claim is that you can take one of these "Energizers" and put one battery on the input, and like 10 batteries on the output, and charge up all 10 batteries while using up only 1.

I can take a trip down to the local flying model hot-spot and watch hobbyists display their creations and its capabilities. I can go to trade shows and see the works of silver smiths, hobby electrical engineers, cattle breeders, botanists, etc.

True - not everything you see at the fair is as advertised .... but it's much more difficult to perpetuate a scam when you are at trade fairs that attract those who can be considered peers in the respective field.

You mean like the conferences that Bedini and Friedrich do every year, and the "Tesla Tech" conferences? (Which no one here has ever attended...)

reply to post by cupocoffee

No, you have not answered my questions at all.

A failure to comprehend on your part does not constitute error on mine.

What sort of evidence could an ATS member possibly post in an ATS thread that would prove that these devices work beyond any shadow of a doubt?

You could start by building it, yourself.

Detail what you used to construct it, how you constructed it, etc.

You could then hazard at a theory of operation, explaining what the device does and a theory on how it does it.

Then, you could take detailed measurements using the appropriate devices (a digital multimeter will come in handy - preferably a high-impedance model - O-scopes are also handy if we are dealing with AC waveforms).

Ultimately, however, you would prove the claims of over-unity. To do that, I would suggest devising a method of doing this that can be done within a five minute video and filmed continuously (IE - no "time skips"). You would want to have your set up so that the device is clearly visible and each component can be identified and there are as few places to hide extra power sources, wires, etc. Then, demonstrate that the device is capable of taking a single power source and creating more power without extra input. This would involve lifting a load, operating a device, etc.

It's still not going to be proof - but it would be enough to convince most of the skeptics to agree it was worth tinkering with the device on their own.

You don't seem to have a clear understanding of why it is people are critical of this device.

Okay, good. So you build something that works and take your house off the grid with it.

HOW would you then prove to the rest of us beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have a working overunity device powering your house?

By telling the power company to piss off.

By quitting your job and starting a business selling batteries, perhaps. You should be able to undercut Energizer, Rayovac, etc... they still pay for their power.

So, what then? How do you then prove to everyone that you are NOT hoaxing, that you are NOT a fraud, and the device really does work as you say it does?

By using it. People notice that sort of stuff.

Six degrees of separation. Word of mouth is one of the most powerful forms of advertising out there.

Right. So in this case, the claim is that you can take one of these "Energizers" and put one battery on the input, and like 10 batteries on the output, and charge up all 10 batteries while using up only 1.

RC Car enthusiasts will love this thing.

If it works.

You mean like the conferences that Bedini and Friedrich do every year, and the "Tesla Tech" conferences? (Which no one here has ever attended...)

No. I mean where is this Yahoo group and these other reported thousands of individuals who have seen success with this device? I see bee farmers, people with solar power, people selling painted rocks.... why aren't these guys making head-ways into that arena?

I really don't care what shows bedini has set up and had no one attend (hasn't he ever heard of serving food? People will always come if there is some kind of food or refreshments involved. Add alcohol, and you'll have a mob).

I'm talking about real trade shows... or even the state fair, for God's sake.

Originally posted by Aim64C

Ultimately, however, you would prove the claims of over-unity. To do that, I would suggest devising a method of doing this that can be done within a five minute video and filmed continuously (IE - no "time skips"). You would want to have your set up so that the device is clearly visible and each component can be identified and there are as few places to hide extra power sources, wires, etc. Then, demonstrate that the device is capable of taking a single power source and creating more power without extra input. This would involve lifting a load, operating a device, etc.

It's still not going to be proof - but it would be enough to convince most of the skeptics to agree it was worth tinkering with the device on their own.

Right, it would be decent evidence, but it would not be absolute proof.

That's all I'm really getting at. Proving something like this to everyone's satisfaction is much, much harder than people realize.

You don't seem to have a clear understanding of why it is people are critical of this device.

No, I understand why people are critical of these devices. There is a huge stigma against "perpetual motion machines" and "free energy" in mainstream science. Most people will refuse to believe it until they see it in person - and even then they might still refuse to believe it!

Certain people, like Bedini, have already done pretty much everything a human being could reasonably be expected to do to prove it, and people still don't want to believe it.

No. I mean where is this Yahoo group and these other reported thousands of individuals who have seen success with this device?

Here's the link again:

tech.groups.yahoo.com...

I see bee farmers, people with solar power, people selling painted rocks.... why aren't these guys making head-ways into that arena?

Well, they're already selling the "Renaissance Charger" solid-state battery chargers, for one thing.

But people don't really want something that just charges a lot of batteries; they want something that outputs useable power directly, something they could put in a car or a house.

I think they are still working on that. On solid-state generators.

I posted this already but have a look at this link:

pesn.com...

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

So you have personally witnessed 100Kwh being extracted from the vacuum, you are admitting that it is possible then?

And I'm sure you realize, saying "No don't do it, it's too dangerous - but I can't tell you why!" means nothing...

Looks like, You haven't checked out the links in my signature.
Gives you a fair inkling to what I am on about.

reply to post by cupocoffee

That's all I'm really getting at. Proving something like this to everyone's satisfaction is much, much harder than people realize.

No, it really isn't. If a device works, it proves itself.

No, I understand why people are critical of these devices. There is a huge stigma against "perpetual motion machines" and "free energy" in mainstream science. Most people will refuse to believe it until they see it in person - and even then they might still refuse to believe it!

No, you don't get it.

Does Bedini purchase his electricity or, at the very least, buy standard alkaline batteries every Christmas?

When an machine is claimed to generate a phenomena so immensely useful, and it remains a topic of conspiracy forums and taboo topics, there's considerable reason to suspect something is amiss.

It's not about refusal to believe. It's about the ability to remain logical. Electronics has comprised roughly the past ten years of my background, education, and experience. It's very likely that I know electronics better than Bedini does. So, you can bet I take a very serious look at how he describes his circuitry and its theory of operation - I also know how to properly take measurements within his circuit, and what each measurement means.

I find it highly irregular that his system relies on batteries. We've discussed this before; you and I; but for electrical purposes, a battery and capacitor are identical. If there is over-unity being generated by the other components in the system, it would be stored in a capacitor just as well as, if not better than, in a battery.

Further still, you could set up a cascade of these circuits with feedback circuitry - which could all be performed autonomously and give you a power output limited only to the limitations of component engineering and the number of stages in your cascade.

Hell, even with batteries, this could be done.

Sure - there's a "stigma" against over-unity devices. That would be wiped out in a heartbeat with an over-unity device. Just like the Wright-Brothers wiped out the stigma of previous attempts at flight (which were comical, at times).

Certain people, like Bedini, have already done pretty much everything a human being could reasonably be expected to do to prove it, and people still don't want to believe it.

Spare for actually use it.

A high school electronics student could build one of these and create basic support circuitry that would set them up with a perpetual source of energy. It doesn't require some dark-arts knowledge to build a system capable of exploiting this effect to incredibly practical means.

Well, they're already selling the "Renaissance Charger" solid-state battery chargers, for one thing.

Do you even know what this is?

It's a pricey battery charger. They use a higher than average voltage spike, for starters. This is an attempt to reduce chemical erosion of the battery (among other things). The other interesting thing about it is that it attempts to balance the chemical breakdown across the terminals of the cell by using a negative-side pulse (exactly how effective this is can be argued).

It's not over-unity. Nor is it marketed as over-unity. It is, however, expensive as all holy hell for what the circuitry inside actually is (and I'd have to do more research on existing battery chargers in that field and what they offer).

I will say, by driving a charge with a high voltage spike (some of the people on forums have measured spikes in the 200v range), the cell can be 'overdriven' to charge when other battery chargers would produce little to no charge on the battery. All the charger is really doing is charging the battery to a given voltage (which is independent of the input voltage... within some limitations depending upon the battery and some other factors). This allows it to overcome the natural resistances that build up in the battery as the terminals corrode on the inside.

It may also be 'easier' on the battery... but I kind of doubt it.

All of which makes me wonder if the Bedini motor people are touting as Over Unity is really just a misunderstanding on their part (from what I'm seeing of the claims, it's simply acting as a method to reclaim some power that is normally lost to ohmic heating in the power conduits... or attempting to).

But, again, not over-unity.

reply to post by Aim64C


Aim64C

I do get very tired of debating this same point over and over and over again.

You know, if anyone around here could produce something better than Bedini and his associates, I'd love to see it!! I really would!

But so far, no one has.

As I mentioned before, certain prominent ATS members scoffed at Bedini and said they could do better than him, but years have literally passed, and still they have produced nothing.

I'm just calling it like I see it. Everyone either assumes that such technology is impossible, or that they can do better than Bedini. Meanwhile there's all those freely available schematics which no one here will try building, the "Circuits and Schematics" books which no one here will buy, the Yahoo group for builders which no one here will join, the open-source kits which no one here will buy and assemble, the conferences which no one here will attend........

You know, if you want to really do something and actually be successful at it, you would think that simple logic would tell you to go with the most reputable inventor who has been in the game like 40 years, longer than anyone else, and who has produced more evidence than anyone else - patents, schematics, books, videos, open-source kits, private builder/tester groups, everything. Everything other than an official blessing from NASA or MIT, that is....

I'm just calling it like I see it. If anybody can produce something better than Bedini, I'd love to see it! But if not - then maybe you guys should go with his stuff.

Just a suggestion. I really am just a janitor, I can't tell you guys what to do....

reply to post by cupocoffee

I do get very tired of debating this same point over and over and over again.

But your replies are as reliable and predictable as ever.

You know, if anyone around here could produce something better than Bedini and his associates, I'd love to see it!! I really would!

I made a digital clock several years ago in my vocational electronics class. The device worked. It is, therefor, better than the devices claimed to be over-unity devices by Bedini.

Now, if his device works to produce over-unity (which it doesn't) - I already stated that it would be a very basic application of electronics to use a cascade of said devices to create a very powerful source of energy.

It's inherent to the claimed capabilities of the device; just as multivibrators are a very basic and inherent application of the operational amplifier (which leads us into the basics of digital electronics with logic gates, flip-flops, etc - basically all built on bistable multivibrators).

As I mentioned before, certain prominent ATS members scoffed at Bedini and said they could do better than him, but years have literally passed, and still they have produced nothing.

You should put a little effort into comprehending what you are being told. You claim Bedini has developed an over-unity device (along with many others, presumably Bedini, himself). If I accept that statement as true - then his ability to apply his invention sucks, along with the rather implausible conclusion that every other person who has built his device and met with success, also, fails to grasp the implications of the device and see the very simple manner to expound upon the device.

Seeing as there is a lack of expounding - a lack of practical applications of the claimed over-unity device, and yet still many claim to have built and found it successful... one can only come to the logical conclusion that the device is not nearly as successful as the claims would make it sound.

I'm just calling it like I see it.

No, you're not. You're either a fool, or deliberately perpetuating a scam.

Everyone either assumes that such technology is impossible, or that they can do better than Bedini.

It's not difficult to demonstrate over-unity, kid.

It's only difficult to do when you try and prove you have done it without actually producing more power than you put into the system.

Meanwhile there's all those freely available schematics which no one here will try building, the "Circuits and Schematics" books which no one here will buy, the Yahoo group for builders which no one here will join, the open-source kits which no one here will buy and assemble, the conferences which no one here will attend........

And you base this assumption on... what? Because people are telling you it doesn't and will not work?

"You built it wrong."

"You are just a troll."

"What about the thousands of others who say it works?"

Testimonials cannot and will not further this discussion. Only a look at reality will. And that reality is that there are claims that this device produces an over-unity effect. One must, then, take into consideration that many people making these claims are not actually utilizing the device to any practical ends, despite the obvious advantages an over-unity phenomena would have.

So, perhaps the simple question is: "where is yours?"

and who has produced more evidence than anyone else - patents, schematics, books, videos, open-source kits, private builder/tester groups, everything. Everything other than an official blessing from NASA or MIT, that is....

And a working device.

Like I said - a working device speaks for itself. It doesn't need a yahoo group. It doesn't need a youtube video, a book on how awesome it is, etc. There are books that describe the function of the Death Star, for God's sake, or delve into the character biographies of the Z fighters or Konoha 11 (and copyrights).

A functional device speaks for itself. Over-unity is no small phenomena. It's not a gimmick like the linear Gauss Rifle made out of ball bearings and rare earth magnets. Even if it is only a tiny fraction of an over-unity yield... the effects are worth scaling and cascading.

Just a suggestion. I really am just a janitor, I can't tell you guys what to do....

You know... job titles have little to do with your experiences and knowledge...
that said - people do need to learn their place.

You're ignoring both common sense and subject-tradesmen/experts.

Bedini is not a case of the little man using ingenuity to take the fight to the big man. I hate to burst your bubble, but he's another name on the long, sad list of false-messiahs that attract a lot of attention on these forums.

reply to post by Aim64C


Aim64C

As I said, I am very, very tired of arguing about it. I am not going to go point-for-point with you.

I only make my "reliable and predictable" replies because of the lack of any visible progress by anyone around here on this issue.

The intent of your posts is obvious, you like many others are simply here to dissuade others from trying the very obvious avenues of investigation that are right in front of their faces. You have no real desire to build or prove anything.

I've said my peace, more than once now. I have nothing more to add. I'm tired.

coffee out

Tesla delved into many different areas using esoteric equipment designs that are commonly misunderstood even by modern well schooled technologists. We were discussing his interest in signals from Mars in a recent thread.

Technically he was known to have developed an extraordinarily sensitive radio receiver in his Colorado springs laboratory way back in 1899.

Technical details for the receiver on this link

www.teslasociety.com...

It reminded me of the modern superhet designs (which I have built and have a better understanding of). Of course superhet wasn't invented till 1918. According to the above article Tesla used a "negative resistor" rather than an RF loop back


This "negative resistor" phenomena was revisited in early Point contact transistor superhet designs 50 years later. Lots of really good technical links to support this stuff especially if you're a radio Geek..

The Voyager 1 fly by of Jupiter even discovered the *patent* signal from that planet that matched Tesla's 1899 description!

www.tfcbooks.com...

A lot of people seem to believe Tesla was insane because he often "spoke in riddles". He was quoted as saying he was concerned about hostile signals he was hearing from Mars and proposed things like splitting the Earth with carefully timed explosions. I guess I would have to agree that any method you or I thought of too split the Earth with explosions would be insane.

Its possible the 1938 Orson Welles' The War of the Worlds broadcast was inspired by Tesla's Mars musings.

There is a lot of fascinating declassified information available out there. We keep screaming for "full disclosure" here on ATS but we are too lazy to dig and think on our own just a little bit.

Someone shows us a picture of a camera shoe and everyone jumps to claim its just a deck sneaker.

reply to post by Cauliflower


I think tesla was refering to scalar wave tech when he was talking or hinting about splitting the earth.
His anti gravity/ time machine allegedly had this capability.
Yes Ag tech has its dangers in the wrong hands

I would like to post my research info that I have been doing on Teslas work and what exactly he was up to. Please do not take this post as facts or solid truth of Tesla's work , I am only posting my own ideas on what I think he was trying to do. Mr. Tesla started his work with his vision in 1882 with his discovery of "The Rotating Magnetic Field". When this image became clear in his mind the day he was walking through the park with his friend he knew right away that he had made a major discovery. The principle of the rotating magnetic field is the most overlooked discovery when it comes to what Teslas work was truly all about. Before his discovery, Tesla was working on designing dynamos and DC motors for DC generation and transmission of electricity. For one to clearly see what Tesla was picturing in his head , we must fully understand how electricity is generated , transmitted , and received with the current day technology. The fact of the matter is , the people are paying for flowing water from a river. The Niagara Falls and the Hoover Damn power plants use the weight of the water to turn A/C generators as the water flows through the damn. Tesla said "We must use fuel sources that are inexhaustible" so by using the force of the flowing water he was able to construct the Niagara Falls power plant that to this day has not stopped operation. In simple terms, all one needs for electrical generation of power is rotating mechanical energy. Or all you need is something that is turning naturally with no fuel source needed. I think that this is as simple as it gets for electricity. What the problems are when it comes to generating unlimited free electricity is once it is generated and flowing, the energy must have somewhere to flow to. In other words there must be a destination that the current is flowing to. As we can all see electricity today is sent to homes and city's for use for lights/electric fans etc. But when the current has no where to go, then the weakest link in the transmission wires is where the current begins to flow to and the temp. of that part of the wire begins to increase and unless the current is stopped or redirected you'll usually end up with melted wires. The same thing occurs when the 2 leads of a battery are connected by a conductor. the battery will begin to send its stored current out the Negative and into the Positive lead creating a uncontrollable loop of electrical current. This cause's for the batteries charge to increase constantly with no control of output energy. In my tests I did connecting batteries leads together I think is an uncontrolled loop of current. The loop of energy keeps increasing to the point where the weakest part(Or area that has the least resistance) of the loop starts to heat up to the point where the metals begin to melt and dose not stop tell its leads are disconnected or melted apart that stops the uncontrolled loop of current. What I have come to believe now is that Tesla knew of this current loop problem. What I think he did(And what I attempting to rebuild) is create a way to control this loop of increasing energy so one could tap and use that power for his own. Keep in mind the only technology at the time that used electricity was lights and motors. Also at the time there was no airplanes and because electricity was so new to everyone, there was hardly anything that ran on electricity.(1886 was when the electric fan was invented and 1887 was when Tesla invented the "Induction Motor") In my opinion no one at the time even needed free electricity because there was almost nothing to use it with. Today that is a completely different story, now there is so much technology that uses electricity to the point where our very infrastructure HIGHLY depends on it to function. Without it all the work mankind has done over the past 100 years would vanish. Getting back to what i think Tesla was working on, in my opinion, he was inventing a course of machines that would allow him to control the flow and loop of electrical current that happens from connecting the leads together. But its more complex then that. It seems to me that he began the flow of current with a 3 phase A/C generator, stepped it up with high voltage transformers, then send up the Tesla coil to what I have come to believe is a Electromagnet pole that is not connected to anything. Tesla's generator has 3 stationary coils around a wheel magnet. When the magnet is rotating, it induces a change of strength in North/south polarity as it rotates.Two coils north, one coil south then two coils south and one north and so on. The picture I put together in my mind is this type of Alternating Current, when sent through a Tesla coil and arch's to a iron pole wrapped with copper, then the pole itself would become a huge electromagnet that pulsates a north and south magnetic field. I'm not saying I'm right, but this type of man made magnetic field would simulate a field of electricity. What do u guys think?

My God, don't tell me teslas invention of 3 phase AC was inspirational........
He was a quirky genius and could use even short circuit currents to his advantage

reply to post by cupocoffee

that layered material that produces power sounds like the answer to a lot of our problems. I remember hearing of recovered alien materials (Corso's book?) that was manufactured with strange layers or also that material that got hotter or colder than it's surroundings. I really don't care where the tech comes from as long as it comes. It will save the planet and possibly civilization by bringing free power to everyone. It would probably end the class divisions between the haves and have nots. I say bring it on and good bye BP!

reply to post by bottleslingguy

I heard about these layered materials on keryy cassidys video, though I womder, if these layered materials whether alien or otherwise can deliver any significantamount of power, to be of any real practical consequence, even if they are connected in series.