|Subject: RE: free energy - MEG
/ how to get it going on global scale
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:36:51 -0500
you can check the references cited in my papers (e.g., on the website)
and at present that's about it.
simple terms, consider a windmill.
So long as the wind blows and the blades are turned into it,
the windmill powers its load (e.g., pumping water) and you yourself do
not have to input any energy. Here
you do not worry about COP, because you don't have to input anything.
The windmill is said to be "self-powering".
the windmill is improperly oriented or its blades are not angled
fully, you may have to input some energy yourself, in addition to what
is input by the wind, to get the windmill working well and pumping
water to capacity. But if
it's pretty good, you may have to input only
a little bit of energy while the wind puts in lots more.
Consequently you get more out of the windmill to pump the
water, than you yourself put in.
The coefficient of performance (pumping work out divided by
your own energy input) can be COP>1.0 in that case.
the windmill is oriented wrong and the blades are flattened, you
yourself will have to put in all the energy to rotate the windmill and
pump the water. In that
case, you will have some losses in friction etc. in the windmill, and
you will get out less pumping work on the water than the energy you
input, because you have to "power" not only the pumping
energy but the losses. The
COP<1.0 in that case, no matter what you do.
Maxwellian electrodynamics is pure fluid flow theory, period.
Anything that can be done in fluids, can in theory be done in
Maxwellian systems. Hence,
since the windmill is a gadget that works because of a fluid (wind)
energy flow, and an EM device or circuit is a gadget that works
because of an electric wind (energy) flow, the analogy is exact
because the equations are of the same form.
Hence if you get your EM "gadget" properly oriented
in an EM "wind" (energy flow), there are no laws of physics,
thermodynamics, or nature preventing that beast from producing
COP>1.0 or even self-powering.
Else there could be no such thing as a windmill, sailboat,
easy example of a COP>1.0 energy transducer is a solar cell.
Notice we did NOT say "efficiency".
The efficiency refers to the entire energy input, not just what
you yourself input. The
COP refers only to what you input, not to the entire energy input.
A solar cell (good one) may have 20% efficiency, but it is
still self-powering so its COP>>1.0.
the trick is to (1) form something in the EM circuit or power system
that is known to produce an "energy wind", so to speak.
Then (2) put an "interceptor/translator" device in
that energy flow or energy wind, so that it deflects and collects some
of that energy flow into the circuit or system.
Then (3) dissipate some of that freely collected energy in a
load, so that the load is powered.
But (4) you must not use half the intercepted and collected
energy to destroy the "thing" that is producing the free
electrical wind (free electromagnetic energy flow) for you to tap
circuit the electrical engineer is trained to build, does all of that
except one thing: They
are universally designed to violate criterion (4).
Hence all the conventional circuits and power systems are
COP<1.0 systems, a priori, because the closed current loop circuit
is specifically designed to destroy the source dipole, which -- once
made -- extracts the EM energy from the seething vacuum and pours it
out the terminals of the generator, so that some of it can be caught
in the circuit, used to power a load, etc.
Unfortunately, that circuit uses precisely half the
"caught energy" to destroy the source dipole producing the
free wind. Hence it
destroys the energy flow that it is intercepting, faster than it can
power the load.
that's a heck of a way to run the energy railroad for more than a
am very flattered by your extensive and so very personal response.
this is very exciting and I really wish you all the best.
have problems to follow your scientific argument as I am not a studied
physicist (I am an architect)
the concepts of multidimensionality are so very hard to grasp when
compared to the everyday 3-dimensional experience we have grown up in.
have tried to read Hawkins, but sorry, it didn't click.
there anything I can read to get a somewhat better grasp of these
concepts, that you seem to be now leading from theoretical physics
into practical engineering?
regards and my full admiration for your work and courage