Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


New Free Energy Research Breakthrough

New Free Energy Research Breakthrough - Physics Forum

New Free Energy Research Breakthrough - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-01-2005, 04:37 AM
Paul Lowrance
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough



Dear fellow researchers.

The following is detailed information on research I've been doing for
some time now. IMHO it is a major breakthrough in magnetic material.
Yet, it does not break any modern theories and in fact completely uses
Classical Physics. I believe it will lead anyone who has a fairly
strong grasp of physics and is capable of write computer VC++ code. If
you are unable to code, then perhaps you know a coder who is willing to
work with you.

I am currently working on research that utilizes classical physics in
conjunction with computer simulations that looks promising. I believe
with certainty that I've discovered a way to extract energy from
matter in a complete safe and cheap method. This research uses
well-known classical physics. Computer simulations are not only
revealing where the free energy is coming from, but how. The end
design will be a device capable of generating kilowatts of power while
utilizing very basic electronic parts such as Diodes, Caps, MOSFET's,
and highly permeable magnetic material. The cost should be well under
$1000 and the size of a shoe.

I think that a great deal of free energy researchers are searching for
some kind of radiant or new energy. Surely, there's most likely some
sort of energy similar to Tesla's radiant energy. Although I have
been using the more classical physics theories, which tell us there is
enormous amount of energy around us. E = mc^2. Take nuclear energy
for example. As we know, the elements are traveling at incredible
speeds. Consider how much energy in heat is in a gallon of water at
room temperature versus the same gallon of water at nearly 0 K.
That's a lot of energy! So what if a machine could suck energy out
of say magnetic material. This would in turn make the material cold,
and due to thermal conductivity, the material would get energy from the
environment. That is, the material would make the air, ground, or
whatever it's touching colder. So then the environment gets colder,
but guess what? The device gives the energy to say a TV, or a motor,
or a hair dryer, which gives that heat right back to the environment.
:-) Long ago while in high school, my physics teacher pointed to a
table and said, "What if all the vibrating elements in that table were
aligned to the same direction at the same time? The table would shoot
through the roof and into orbit at an incredible rate!" My physics
teacher was correct in that there is incredible energy in matter, which
is constantly being reheated every day by the Sun.

So now the question is, how can we get energy from magnetic material?
Consider the following design of mine.

Two Ferrite Rod machine:
1. Take two pieces of ferrite rod material.
2. Wrap copper wire around each rod.
3. Separate the rods.
4. Energize both rods by running current through the copper wire coil.
5. Now the two ferrite rods are attracted toward each other. Allow the
rods to collapse together and extract the potential energy from the
motion and force, like a motor.
6. Release the current in both coils.
7. Go to step 3 and repeat.

So in step 4, how much energy is required to energize the coil? It
depends on the permeability of the ferrite material and the
shape/dimensions of the material. Now do the same above experiment
except use ferrite material that has a much higher permeability. Guess
what? It will take far less energy to energize the rod. Although, in
step 5 we get the same amount of energy since the magnetic fields are
at the same strength. The end result, we gain more energy with the
higher permeable material. Just how much free energy is only limited to
how permeable we can make material. Theoretically, it's possible to
achieve efficiencies in the billions. This is not OU though. It
simply means we're extracting energy from the material.

So then where is the free energy coming from? The above is what
started my recent quest for free energy! After a great deal of
intensive studies of magnetic materials I've learned a lot. I've
written numerous computer VC++ simulation programs trying to simulate
magnetic materials, which proved to be very difficult at first. These
unsuccessful simulations turned out to be a blessing in disguise. I
had a theory on what was happening. I just wanted to see if a computer
simulation, using classical physics, would prove that theory. My
theory was this. Heat, the vibrating elements in the material, were
responsible for collapsing / forcing the magnetic field in highly
permeable material to near zero field strength. As we know, it's the
intrinsic electron spin that causes the magnetic field in ferromagnetic
materials. My initial computer programs simulated tiny magnetic
particles. The problem was this. Without heat, all the particles would
align with each other like a permanent magnet. The problem was that it
took a great deal of energy to demagnetize the material. Once the
material was demagnetized, it would then just snap to the opposite
magnetic polarity. After numerous simulations I finally introduced
heat. Once heat was introduced, the materials would then behave like
materials with high permeability. So then, finally, I could test my
theory. I simulated my two ferrite rod machine and was thrilled to see
the computer reveal that there was free energy and the free energy was
coming from the magnetic material. It was the heat that was forcing /
knocking the electron spins out of alignment. Without this heat, the
electron spins would stay in alignment without any external force. If
the magnetic field in both of the rods did not collapse, then it would
require energy in step 3--separating the rods. Allow two magnets to
pull each other together. Then try to separate the magnets. It takes
energy to separate them. But now imagine large balls are bounce all
over the place an incredible speeds. Imagine one of the balls hits the
magnets a forces them apart. The magnets separate but it took energy
away from the moving ball.

Here's an interesting test. In the two ferrite rod machine, replace
the ferrite rods with copper air coils that has circuitry inside.
We'll call them the CRC (Copper Rod Coils). The idea here is to
simulate the magnetic material. In other words, if there's an
applied magnetic field in the CRC, then the CRC will generate a lot of
current to create a magnetic field. So let's just say that inside
the CRC is circuitry that senses an applied magnetic field and then
generates current. If the CRC senses 1 oersted, then it generates a
1,000 gauss field. So then we could say that our CRC has a
permeability of 1000. Now let's try the two ferrite rod machine with
the CRC in place of the magnetic material. So we have a copper coil
that's wrapped around our CRC. Classical physics shows that it
requires energy in step 4. But most of the energy is taken away from
the CRC. In fact, for every Joule taken away from our coil, 1000
joules is taken away from the CRC. After all, it is the CRC that
generated most of the magnetic field-- times 1000 more than our coil.
Since there is 1000 times as much current in the CRC than our coil
(that's wrapped around the CRC), then the induced voltage * 1000
current is 1000 times the power taken away from the CRC. In step 5, we
gain a lot of energy from the two rods pulling toward each other, and
the coil lose a little energy because of the induced voltage in our
coil caused by the two rods coming closer. Although, most of the
energy is taken away from the CRC because it's generating the large
magnetic field. In step 6, both the coil and the CRC get energy back.
The end result, according to classical physics, the CRC lost more
energy than it gained and the coil gained more energy than it lost;
i.e., we get some energy from the CRC. In order for the CRC to come
out even (no loss in energy), it would have to behave like magnetic
material that is not affected by heat. In other words, if the CRC had
a significant amount of hysteresis (requiring energy to demagnetize
it), then the CRC would come out even.

That was just the beginning. Being a perfectionist, I wanted a
solid-state device. There were just to many unknowns in the two
ferrite rod machine. First, just how permeable did the material need
to be to overcome friction losses from ball bearings, electrical
resistances, etc? Additionally, materials have hysteresis. The
computer simulations I used so far were for perfect material that had
no hysteresis. For all I knew it would require permeability of a
trillion. I'm not one for playing guessing games. So this all led
to Ising, a well-known study of magnetic material simulation. Ising
has successfully simulated and allowed scientists to understand such
phenomenon in magnetic materials such as avalanches and hysteresis.
I've since learned a great deal about magnetic materials, domains,
avalanches, hysteresis, etc. I learned that indeed without heat, the
magnetic particles would snap in alignment, and would require energy to
demagnetize them. That heat was responsible for demagnetizing magnetic
materials. For example, energize a coil and then release the current
in the coil. The amount of magnetic field that remains is called the
Residual Flux. The amount of force required to fully demagnetize the
material is called the Coercive Force. Permanent magnets are simply
magnetic materials that have high Residual Flux. Materials with high
permeability such as Metglas have extremely low Residual Flux and
require very little energy to fully demagnetize and also happen to
require very little energy to energize them to a specific magnetic
field.

So Ising led me so far. With Ising, I was able to include hysteresis.
The end results were the same except that the efficiencies were lowered
for the same tests. But the design called for extremely high pulsed
currents. According to the simulations, the higher the pulsed current,
the higher efficiencies obtained. The pulsed currents must saturate
the materials to at least 99.97% of saturation. It was a fine line.
Anything much lower resulted in nearly no free energy. All previous
simulations led me to a solid-state design idea that would extract free
energy from magnetic material. But there are still some unknowns with
the design and possible gotchas. As far as the two ferrite rod
machine, IMHO there are no ifs. I'm nearly 100% certain it can
generate free energy if given high enough permeability. To complete my
solid state design simulations I needed simulations for inhomogeneous
fields, which no Ising simulations are capable of doing. It seems
easy, but when it comes to doing the details, it turns out to be very
difficult and results in very questionable simulations. This is due to
the fact that the simulation must take into consideration of the
magnetic fields of every other magnetic particle. This in a sense is
like removing the heat from the equation and we end up with permanent
magnets again.

At present I am mapping the exact real life characteristics of an
Amidon FT-150A-WC magnetic toroid. Once this has been mapped, then I
can complete the solid-state design simulation with complete
confidence. The design may or may not work. If it does not, then I am
certain there are solid-state designs that will work. In fact, I see a
good chance of the current design not working, but I'm confident that
I'll find the correct solid-state design that will extract free
energy. If even that's unsuccessful, then there's always the two
ferrite rod machine, which I'm confident will work. I would like to
add that this solid-state design is very similar to Tom Bearden's
design. If Tom Bearden would just tweak the current pattern slightly,
then it would match my design theory. Although isn't Tom Bearden
under the impression that a permanent magnet is required? Simulations
clearly show this is not required, but makes the design a whole lot
easier. The simulations take out all the guesswork.

I would invite people to participate, but I'm not sure if it would
accelerate the work at present. It would require too much catching up.
Although I do invite everyone to begin their own studies in this
field. As for the computer simulation software, I would love to share
it after I clean it up and add a GUI interface to it. At present I'm
simply using the debuggers watch window to see the values of variables.
Also I'd like to clean up the code a whole bunch before releasing
it. It's real ugly, LOL! The important factor is that I've
provided more than enough information for people to create their own
simulation software. Even if I magically disappeared tomorrows, at
least the information is out there. If you would be so kind, then
please spread this information. Save it on your drives and memory
sticks. Print it on paper. If you find a real error, then please let
me know. Who knows, maybe tomorrow I'll look like a fool who
overlooked a very obvious issue. :-( Who knows.

In closing, all that I ask is that if you use this information to
create a free energy machine, that you will only PLEASE offer the
machine as Public Domain that everyone can build and sell as they wish
in a similar fashion to the Linux open source project. If you use the
information to create such a machine, you are encouraged to patent the
device for controlling purposes to only prevent other corporations from
stealing the technology. As for guarantees, I cannot make any
guarantees. Even though the computer simulations are using proven
well-tested classical physics math, this may be completely flawed, or
it may not. Anything is possible!

Kind Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-01-2005, 07:28 AM
Jeremy Watts
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough


"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109651838.256429.23330@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...

Arent you just getting out what you've put in...? A little like extracting
the energy from a compressed spring before re-compressing it again....



Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2005, 08:08 AM
ring_theory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics depicts end game.
no victory.

"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109651838.256429.23330@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2005, 12:09 PM
Paul Lowrance
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough

Dear ring_theory,

Would you agree that atoms are vibrating? Would you agree that energy
can be extracted from the moving atoms and electrons?

Paul L.

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2005, 01:00 PM
Ken Kubos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough


NanoTechnology???

--
Ken

"Buddhism elucidates why we are sentient."

"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109678942.429927.159120@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
| Dear ring_theory,
|
| Would you agree that atoms are vibrating? Would you agree that energy
| can be extracted from the moving atoms and electrons?
|
| Paul L.
|


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2005, 02:16 PM
ring_theory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough


"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109678942.429927.159120@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
Lets talk about thermodynamics. I'd say that's what you have to overcome.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2005, 05:06 PM
Paul Lowrance
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough

Sounds good. But please, let's just keep the discussion civilized.
I've posted the letter at other places. Before we start though, can
anyone please explain why there are so many scientists who get online
and absolutely trash people? I've spent a lot of time doing this,
and perhaps it's flawed, but imagine if you posted a document and
then logged online the next day to see really nasty negative replies
and nothing constructive. I can't imagine walking up to a university
teacher and hearing such hate and personal comments. I just want to be
as unbiased and truthful as possible.

About thermodynamics, when you examine the experiments that founded
thermodynamics, do these experiments really state that energy in the
vibrating particles is unobtainable? Computers are great at simulating
details that our mind could not possibly follow through. So I'm
really having some difficulty trying to explain this since I have the
advantage of actually stepping through the computer simulation code.
Here's a possible simplified example:

Let's examine magnetic material on a microscopic scale. For
simplicity lets just focus on one atom. I understand that the magnetic
field is coming from the intrinsic electron spin. This atom is part of
a whole, a ferrite rod. The ferrite rod is nearly saturated due to
current flowing in a coil around it. So the coil has energized the
ferrite rod. So our atom is aligned with the rest of the atoms
magnetically. As you know, it takes energy to change that atoms
magnetic polarity in the opposite direction as the rest of the atoms.
Imagine that you're holding two magnets that are together. It takes
energy to flip them so that their polarities are opposite to each
other. Now lets halt the current in our coil that magnetized our
ferrite rod. If the material were at 0 K temperature, then the
magnetic material would obviously remain magnetized, as predicted by
Ising simulations. But as we begin to raise the temperature, the atoms
begin to vibrate and knock other atoms out of magnetic alignment. It
takes energy to flip each atom out of magnetic alignment. If the
material has high permeability, then nearly the entire magnetic field
will collapse in the material at room temperature.

This is not free energy in the case of typical inductors, transformers,
etc. The reason for this is because it's a two way street. That is,
the system gives energy to the magnetic material when the current in
the coil increases, and gets the energy back when the current
decreases. This is a symmetrical system. Computer simulations agree
with transformer and inductor behavior. But what if the system was not
symmetrical as described in my two ferrite rod test?

I appreciate your good comments! I'm hoping people will begin to see
the possibilities here and begin working on this. I think the payoff
to humanity is so great.

Paul L.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-01-2005, 05:13 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough

Dear Paul Lowrance:

"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109696791.649989.191630@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

In some cases, these *are* teachers. And almost as a rule, it is
computer programmers (or wannabes) that bring new "innovations"
in physics. And without exception, it is that computers only do
what computers are told to do. They are otherwise unbound by the
physics the programmer did not know to put in.

David A. Smith


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2005, 09:01 PM
tadchem
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough


"Paul Lowrance" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1109651838.256429.23330@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...

<snip>


How much energy does this step take? You DO have to *pull* them apart; they
don't just fall apart you know. After all, they *have* been magnetized to
attract each other.

I'll bet it takes at least as much energy to do this as you get back later
in step 5.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-01-2005, 09:31 PM
Steve Ralph
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Free Energy Research Breakthrough


"tadchem" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

I think he is hypothesising a material with a negative permittivity

SR




Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
breakthrough , energy , free , research


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FFiMP: Where is the gravitational energy? Jan Gooral Physics Forum 0 05-22-2008 02:52 PM
Seeing Holographically cinquirer Physics Forum 24 11-19-2003 12:09 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22121 seconds with 16 queries