New Free Energy Research Breakthrough

Your computer program?

I hate to seem picky, but it's really rather easy to do some
experiments, certainly easier than attempting advanced
materials modelling.
All you have to do is get a couple of rods of lowest available
permittivity ferrite , some copper wire, ammeters, power supply, that
sort of stuff, and do the experiment.

Sr



The above is what

Dear Tom,

No, in Step 3 there is no current in the ferrite rods.

Dear Paul Lowrance:

"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109775584.510018.4700@z14g2000cwz.googlegrou ps.com...

So you are saying that the electrons in the conduction band in
the ferrite are entirely unaffected by the external current? I
wonder if you've ever heard of hystersis, or "linear induction
motors"...

David A. Smith

Dear Steve,

No, please be picky. It's the uncivilized posts that I will not
reply or even continue reading.

I am currently mapping the real life test characteristics of Amidon
FT-150A-WC material. Once this is mapped then I'll create a computer
program that matches the real life data. There's more to it than
just mapping the hysteresis. I'll need to map the characteristics of
magnetically twisting the material. There are many benefits of
computer simulations. For one, I can change the design completely in
minutes. Secondly, the computer can simulate perfect conducting wire
such as superconducting wire. This lossless simulation has already
proved invaluable to this work. For example, one of the solid state
designs shows that free energy is not evident until the magnetic
material reaches extremely high saturations. In one simulation the
saturation needed to reach 125 times greater than half saturation. I
would have never spotted this in real life building. The amount of
free energy at say only 100 times half saturation was so small compared
to the amount of energies involved that it would be immeasurable.
Instead of say 60% efficiency, it would have been 60.001%. Another
advantage of simulations is that I see the energy levels of the
magnetic material, from the batteries, and any kinetic energies gained
from motion (as in the two ferrite rod design). That way I can focus
on what I want, energy extraction from the magnetic material.

Again, I don't want to sound like an authority by any means. As
mention in the letter, there exists a known possibility for simulation
error for the solid state designs. That is why I'm mapping the
Amidon material. As for the two ferrite rod design, I see no errors or
room for error yet. But time will tell. You have no idea how much I
appreciate any ideas and thought. If anyone would like to contact me
via online chat or telephone them please by all means send me an email.

Thanks for any help in this research,
Paul Lowrance

Dear David,

Please read my letter where it mentions Ising. Ising is a successful
simulation of hysteresis and avalanche effects. Yes, I am aware of
that.

Paul Lowrance wrote:

When you 'energize' the coils in step 4, some of the energy also is
expended in establishing small circular currents in the ferrite. It is
these currents that produce the magnetic field of the ferrite.

In step 6, when you interrupt the current in the *coils,* you do *not*
necessarily interrupt the current in the ferrite.

When you get back to step 3 again, you now have two *magnets* to pull
apart. This takes energy.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Dear Tom,

Where have you learned this? I've been working with magnetic
materials for a long time. That's not real life nor is that
according to magnetic theory.

Please let me describe below magnetic material, at least the way I
understand it, and I'm fairly certain about this part.



Circular currents, are talking about Eddie currents. Eddie currents
are irrelevant in most ferrite material because the conductivity of the
material is so high. In iron Eddie currents can be a problem, which is
why they laminate the core.



What produces the magnetic field is fairly well understood. In
ferromagnetic material it is the intrinsic electron spin. If you want,
I can find some good material on the internet about this. This is not
to be confused with the electron spinning around an atom. Intrinsic
electron spin is the actual spin within an electron.


*not*

That would only be Eddie Currents. Please see my statement above on
Eddie Currents. Also, you might be thinking about hysteresis or
magnetic lag. Magnetic lag is an inherent characteristic that depends
upon the size and permeability of the magnetic material in addition to
the internal structure of the magnetic material. For example, the
magnetic lag in say Metglas is extremely low compared to the older
typical materials due to the nano crystalline structures of the
Metglas. This will always improve with technology. The magnetic lag
limits the frequency range of the material.



That is not true. See step 6 where it says, "Release the current in
both coils." The amount of risisual flux is dependant upon the
permeability of the material. This is increasing over time with
improved technology. With the new nano crystalline materials,
permeability's as high as 1,000,000 have made it to the market.

Kind Regards,
Paul

"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109777345.406231.255440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

*What* real life data? Have you *ever* done a physical experiment with
this setup? If not, why not? And answer the question this time please.


There's more to it than


You certainly wouldn't. This is why we do experiments. You do know
what an experiment is, right?


The amount of

Do not worry. You are unlikely to be taken for an authority on the subject

As

What has time got to do with it? Try doing the experiment.


*BIG IDEA FOR FREE*

Do an experiment with real stuff.

SR

If anyone would like to contact me

Dear Steve,

with
please.

With what setup. I've mentioned numerous.





Certainly wouldn't what? Sorry, you're just not the type of person
I want to converse with. Thanks for the replies anyways.

Dear Paul Lowrance:

"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109783323.679410.310160@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
....

That type of person would be...
one with money and no brains right?

It is evident that you don't know a whole lot about the real
physics of what you have been modelling. The people that have
been discoursing with you have (for the most part) been very
polite. All you have been talking about has been done in
electric motors, and yet they have less than unity efficiency.
Which means they don't produce electrical power unless something
is applying power into the output shaft.

You may have been born yesterday, or perhaps the "type of person
you want to converse with" was, but the rest of civilzation has
been trying to get free power for hundreds of years. Patent
offices are innundated by such claims as yours.

Can you hear, or will you choose to be defensive? Because your
code is defective, doesn't make Nature so.

David A. Smith