## 37646RE: [free_energy] Perpetual Motion [1 Attachment]

Expand Messages
• Jan 25, 2014
• 78 KB
1+ file.

To: laurent.damois@...
CC: jack82721@...; free_energy@yahoogroups.com
From: avalanchedrive@...
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:18:18 -0200
Subject: RE: [free_energy] Perpetual Motion [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from murilo luciano filho included below]

Guys,
Take a look and let your mech theory come true!
I'll be around all the time, full of arguments!
Thanx!
Best!
Murilo

To: jack82721@...; free_energy@yahoogroups.com
From: laurent.damois@...
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:08:01 +0100
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Perpetual Motion

The first is energy conservation, the second is energy extraction

2014/1/25 Laurent Damois
Yes and we have 2 diffĂ©rents results beetween Adiabatic Reversible and Adiabatic irreversible. The 2 process are "in a closed loop = adiabatic", the only difference is the speed of time, for this reason 2 diffĂ©rents results (the first air expansion became cold, the second air expansion became hot, 2 process in closed loop)

2014/1/25 Jack R Welch
Energy conservation as you are referring to only applies in a closed loop.

"There is no Right or Left, only Freedom or Tyranny."

On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:22 PM, Laurent Damois <laurent.damois@...> wrote:

I agreed with you, Energy conservation is not demonstrated, and throught CPT violation and Planck Formula, the energy conservation law need to be rewrited: "Energy conservation law is true if and only if the speed of time is conservated" (Energy * Time = Spin and spin is a conservated value, even in relativity). This explain the different result, in thermodynamics, beetween reversible and irreversible adiabatic process

2014/1/24 Alius Sage

The Law of the conservation of Energy and Matter is not actually a law, it is a theory. A law has an equation translated from the theory that proves the theory is correct. The aforementioned false law is improbable since it is not possible to prove the non happening of an event. Furthermore the existence of both matter and energy implies creation thus disproving said law.

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:46 PM, John Berry <berry.john22@...> wrote:

The problem is that tin foil hat thinking is actually closer to the truth.

The problem is that when materialism was embraced, all that was thought to exist was atoms and light.
And there is a lot that can't be explained by that model, so such things were thought not to exist.

And a fluid aether seems very very messy (not easy to model), so when a static aether was dis-proven (M-M experiment) and when an alternative to an aether was proposed (SR) this left zero room for a lot of phenomena to be explained.

But then Einstein made up for his blunder with SR by also noting that matter is energy (e=mc2) and stating that the aether must exist anyway, and then along came quantum physics that proposes waves and a foamy seething sea of virtual particles, and ZPE, Higgs field, frame dragging, super string.
The fluid aether (that has never had a scrap of evidence against it) is essentially reborn under a multitude of different names.

Once we see that there is more that atoms and subatomic particles, light and electric and magnetic fields, but a medium of space that can have various different qualities impressed on it, many mysterious spooky things start to look explainable like the spooky poltergeist like results Hutchison got, oh and ghosts and poltergeists become possible too, as does explaining telepathy, links between twins etc...

On that note, I have found that much like the twin effect, that even typing a random string in such an energy field can cause transmission of that energy, and many can feel it.
See if you can feel any of these 3 strings:

O- 59wycc484gw48gy    73gf94a8    2jF848;w%U2z

You might feel a warmth, tingle, cool or pressure or other sensation in your palm, finders or face, some feel energy in the eyes.
Of course you have to be willing to maybe become a tin foil hatter to even try it.

I've even had some real skeptics feel it, but some believers feel nothing.
It's not free energy, but this energy is the mechanism that allows the normal laws of physics to be violated.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, George Wiseman wrote:
Amy et al,

I do have a magnetic configuration that puts out more energy than I put in; actually I hold it still and it accelerates on it's own when I let it go.  I'll be posting a video next month, as I have a few other projects taking up my time at the moment.

In addition, I have an electrolyzer design which puts out nearly twice as much energy as I put in, when both gas production and heat generated are measured.

And I've been working with extreme mileage technology for decades, often doubling mileage of otherwise ordinary vehicles while retaining full power and performance.

Where does the extra energy come from?  I don't know for sure, but that doesn't stop it from being true.  I have theories that seem to work, but I'm not married to them.  I'm certainly NOT saying the energy comes from nowhere; I'd say it's coming from a source we aren't measuring.  Or, in some cases, it's just a matter of using the energy we already have more efficiently.

It's only the foil hatted people that'll discover these effects... And once proven, leave it up to the 'scientific community' to figure out 'why', hopefully without breaking any of their precious laws :)))

Science used to be about discovery... When did it become about maintaining the status quo?

In any case, just thought I'd toss in my 2 cents, just to show that there are inventors out there with working technology.  I've been self employed, selling my innovations directly to the public (no patents) since 1984.  I'm 100% self-funded in my research.  I have a 100% satisfaction guarantee or money back and I have less than 1% returns.  My innovations DO what I claim and my customers are happy :)

May the blessings be

George Wiseman

On 2014-01-16, at 6:09 AM, murilo luciano filho wrote:

>
> Amy,
> as every skeptic, you look very sure and arrogant...
> ... but you are kindly invited to see my best project.
> In 2MB this system doesn't allow it, but I'll send it later from above Cc address.
> Possibly you'll like it as I do.  B)
> Thanx/regards!
> Murilo
>
> From: amy_littledove@...
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:41:35 -0800
> Subject: [free_energy] Perpetual Motion
>
>
>
> Hello members. I have been a member of this group for many years. I only check in occasionally. I have seen many claims of "free energy" and "perpetual motion" by quacks and frauds, dreamers, schemers, and scammers ( you know who you are). But is there anyone here who legitimately believes they have defied laws of physics, and created true overunity devices?
>
> Please don't bore me, and everyone else with tired old cliche's about the Wright Brothers Edison, etc. ( who honed their inventions in complete compliance of physical laws).
>
> I have read the last hundred or so posts, and as far as I can tell, the only people who believe in defying natural laws are tin-foil wearing freaks. Am I wrong?
>
> Love,
> Amy
>
>
>

May the blessings be.

George Wiseman

------------------------------------

To drop of the list, send email to:

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
free_energy-digest@yahoogroups.com
free_energy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

• Show all 18 messages in this topic