Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [free_energy] Perpetual Motion

Expand Messages
  • Phil Karn
    ... This is always a difficult issue for many non-scientists to accept: even though we don t know all there is to know, how can we make sweeping claims about
    Message 1 of 18 , Sep 1, 2005
      dstesla wrote:

      > Can anyone really know that something is impossible without knowing
      > all that is possible ? Perhaps,the only thing that is impossible is
      > to know that something is impossible of course with one
      > exception .

      This is always a difficult issue for many non-scientists to accept: even
      though we don't know all there is to know, how can we make sweeping
      claims about certain things not being possible?

      The basis of science is that the universe operates according to basic
      physical laws and that we humans can zero in on an understanding of what
      those laws are through a repeated process of empirical observation,
      theorizing, experimentation and refinement.

      Our understandings of those basic physical laws are expressed as
      scientific theories. It's true that every scientific theory, no matter
      how widely accepted, is potentially subject to falsification by new
      evidence, requiring that the existing theory be modified or discarded in
      light of the new evidence.

      So at a certain level, your view actually has merit. But not much.

      When a particular theory has withstood the most sustained, clever and
      diverse attacks that scores of theoretical and experimental scientists
      working over many centuries can throw at it, and when that theory has
      been widely applied by engineers in a wide range of devices that simply
      wouldn't work if the theory were significantly wrong, then we can begin
      to put a great deal of confidence in that particular theory and call it
      a physical *law*.

      While our theories evolve over time, zeroing in on the truth, the
      underlying laws themselves are invariant. No basic physical constant has
      ever been observed to change with time (although we've made increasingly
      accurate measurements.) No basic physical law has ever been observed to
      change over time. Nor has any basic physical law ever been observed to
      change with location, or with your angular orientation with respect to
      the stars.

      A remarkably talented mathematician named Emmy Nether proved that these
      observed invariances of physical laws logically implies the conservation
      of certain quantities such as energy, linear momentum and angular
      momentum. The conclusions are inescapable -- *if* physical laws do not
      change with time, *then* mass and energy are conserved. *If* the
      physical laws do not depend on your position in the universe, *then*
      linear momentum is always conserved. And if the physical laws are
      invarient with respect to rotation, then angular momentum must be
      conserved. There's no escape.

      But your average free energy enthusiast knows little of this. Because
      they rarely have much scientific training, they are ignorant of the
      enormous amount of work that has already gone into establishing and
      verifying what we call "physical laws". Nor do they understand the
      necessarily enormous implications of a given law being substantially wrong.

      Non-scientists are often annoyed or offended by what they perceive as
      the "closed-mindedness" of a scientist quickly dismissing certain claims
      out of hand. But when the scientist understands the necessary
      implications of the claim -- which non-scientists often do not -- and
      knows that those implications would certainly have been observed already
      were they true, then he's not being closed-minded at all. He's simply
      applying the scientific method by discarding a claim whose implications
      are incompatible with the known facts.

      This is, by the way, one of the surest ways to recognize pseudoscience
      -- when the claimant refuses to consider *all* of the logical
      implications of his claim against *all* of the factual evidence. This is
      especially apparent among creationists and adherents to "intelligent
      design" (i.e., Creationism 2.0).

      It would certainly help the public understanding and appreciation of
      science were scientists to take the time to explain exactly how they
      reach the conclusions that they do, but this is not always possible. A
      good scientist is not necessarily a good teacher. But we've got to do
      better. It's obvious that public scientific illiteracy in this country
      is rapidly approaching a tipping point, and something needs to be done
      soon before we slide into another dark ages.

      > In addition, consider the earth . For how many years has it continued
      > to rotate ? How about Billions .
      > I am not sure if it feeds off of some energy which keeps it in
      > rotation as I am not a physicist but it sure seems like a perpetual
      > motion machine to me .

      Actually, the earth once rotated much faster than it does now, because
      much of its energy has since been transferred to the moon through the
      tides. We can actually see that effect through careful measurements of
      the length of the day and the distance to the moon.

      But if we ignored the effects of tides, the earth could rotate forever
      without being a perpetual motion machine. A "perpetual motion machine"
      as the term is commonly used is a device that can keep moving forever
      *and* produce energy for something else. If the earth keeps all its
      energy, it can rotate forever without violating any physical laws. In
      fact, it would *have* to rotate forever to *avoid* violating the first
      law of thermodynamics, the conservation of mass/energy.

      > Perpetual motion would be possible if you could eliminate friction .
      > For the time being it is impossible until someone makes it possible .
      > Perhaps someone already has .

      Perpetual motion in the sense of a machine producing endless power is
      and will always be impossible, because any load on the machine would be
      indistinguishable from friction -- like friction, it would slow the
      machine down.
    • Autymn D. C.
      ... Phil is a shameless pseudoscientific liar, who deliberately ignores my posts that disprove him.
      Message 2 of 18 , Sep 1, 2005
        On 1 Sep 2005, at 00.57, Phil Karn wrote:
        > While our theories evolve over time, zeroing in on the truth, the
        > underlying laws themselves are invariant. No basic physical constant
        > has
        > ever been observed to change with time (although we've made
        > increasingly
        > accurate measurements.) No basic physical law has ever been observed to
        > change over time. Nor has any basic physical law ever been observed to
        > change with location, or with your angular orientation with respect to
        > the stars.

        Phil is a shameless pseudoscientific liar, who deliberately ignores my
        posts that disprove him.

        http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/
        thread/1fd949869b9d4d2b/ea0206c656a58bb7#ea0206c656a58bb7
        http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=2194#pid13960

        > A remarkably talented mathematician named Emmy Nether proved that these
        > observed invariances of physical laws logically implies the
        > conservation
        > of certain quantities such as energy, linear momentum and angular
        > momentum. The conclusions are inescapable -- *if* physical laws do not
        > change with time, *then* mass and energy are conserved. *If* the
        > physical laws do not depend on your position in the universe, *then*
        > linear momentum is always conserved. And if the physical laws are
        > invarient with respect to rotation, then angular momentum must be
        > conserved. There's no escape.
        >
        > But your average free energy enthusiast knows little of this. Because
        > they rarely have much scientific training, they are ignorant of the
        > enormous amount of work that has already gone into establishing and
        > verifying what we call "physical laws". Nor do they understand the
        > necessarily enormous implications of a given law being substantially
        > wrong.

        I disproved Nöther's theorems in my old treatise with yet more maths,
        and data sources. You and anyone else cannot refute it because it is
        true, and inescapable. It proves that laws are arbitrary and you have
        nothing to stand on.

        > This is, by the way, one of the surest ways to recognize pseudoscience
        > -- when the claimant refuses to consider *all* of the logical
        > implications of his claim against *all* of the factual evidence. This
        > is
        > especially apparent among creationists and adherents to "intelligent
        > design" (i.e., Creationism 2.0).

        You are the creationist by refusing to acknowledge that GR, QM, and
        cosmogony dashes your beliefs.

        > It would certainly help the public understanding and appreciation of
        > science were scientists to take the time to explain exactly how they
        > reach the conclusions that they do, but this is not always possible. A
        > good scientist is not necessarily a good teacher. But we've got to do
        > better. It's obvious that public scientific illiteracy in this country
        > is rapidly approaching a tipping point, and something needs to be done
        > soon before we slide into another dark ages.

        Yet you will not acknowledge the private scientific illiteracy in
        authorities such as you in my page=long list of grievances against
        scientists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/17865.

        > But if we ignored the effects of tides, the earth could rotate forever
        > without being a perpetual motion machine. A "perpetual motion machine"
        > as the term is commonly used is a device that can keep moving forever
        > *and* produce energy for something else. If the earth keeps all its
        > energy, it can rotate forever without violating any physical laws. In
        > fact, it would *have* to rotate forever to *avoid* violating the first
        > law of thermodynamics, the conservation of mass/energy.

        Wrong again, rotational energy is only one kind of energy. If the
        "earth keeps all its energy", it can do whatever it want, and the laws
        cannot enforce what they cannot follow: exact energy.

        > Perpetual motion in the sense of a machine producing endless power is
        > and will always be impossible, because any load on the machine would be
        > indistinguishable from friction -- like friction, it would slow the
        > machine down.

        already disproven and bypassed by my treatise

        -Aut
      • amy_littledove
        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
        Message 3 of 18 , Dec 27, 2013
          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
        • murilo luciano filho
          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
          Message 4 of 18 , Jan 16 6:09 AM
            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

          • jody bruce
            Hello Murilo, I am a researcher in renewable energy and over unity machines. Can i see you machine as well please? Take care, jody To: amy_littledove@yahoo.com
            Message 5 of 18 , Jan 16 7:01 AM
              Hello Murilo,

              I am a researcher in renewable energy and over unity machines. Can i see you machine as well please?

              Take care,
              jody


              To: amy_littledove@...
              CC: muarilou@...; free_energy@yahoogroups.com
              From: avalanchedrive@...
              Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:09:41 -0200
              Subject: RE: [free_energy] Perpetual Motion

               

              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


            • George Wiseman
              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
              Message 6 of 18 , Jan 16 2:07 PM
                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
              • John Berry
                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
                Message 7 of 18 , Jan 17 12:59 PM
                  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 <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:
                  free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                  <*> Your email settings:
                      Individual Email | Traditional

                  <*> 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/


                • 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
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 24 10:35 AM
                    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 <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:
                    free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                    <*> Your email settings:
                        Individual Email | Traditional

                    <*> 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/




                  • Laurent Damois
                    Reply @ Alius I agreed with you, Energy conservation is not demonstrated, and throught CPT violation and Planck Formula, the energy conservation law need to be
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jan 24 10:22 PM
                      Reply @ Alius
                      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 <sagealius@...>
                       

                      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 <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:
                      free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                      <*> Your email settings:
                          Individual Email | Traditional

                      <*> 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/





                    • 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
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jan 24 11:18 PM
                        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:
                         
                        Reply @ Alius
                        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 <sagealius@...>
                         
                        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 <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:
                        free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                        <*> Your email settings:
                            Individual Email | Traditional

                        <*> 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/







                      • Laurent Damois
                        Yes and we have 2 différents results beetween Adiabatic Reversible and Adiabatic irreversible. The 2 process are in a closed loop = adiabatic , the only
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jan 25 12:01 AM
                          Yes and we have 2 différents 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 différents results (the first air expansion became cold, the second air expansion became hot, 2 process in closed loop)



                          2014/1/25 Jack R Welch <jack82721@...>
                          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:
                           
                          Reply @ Alius
                          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 <sagealius@...>
                           
                          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 <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:
                          free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                          <*> Your email settings:
                              Individual Email | Traditional

                          <*> 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/








                        • Laurent Damois
                          The first is energy conservation, the second is energy extraction 2014/1/25 Laurent Damois ... The first is energy conservation, the
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jan 25 12:08 AM
                            The first is energy conservation, the second is energy extraction



                            2014/1/25 Laurent Damois <laurent.damois@...>
                            Yes and we have 2 différents 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 différents results (the first air expansion became cold, the second air expansion became hot, 2 process in closed loop)



                            2014/1/25 Jack R Welch <jack82721@...>
                            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:
                             
                            Reply @ Alius
                            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 <sagealius@...>
                             
                            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 <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:
                            free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                            <*> Your email settings:
                                Individual Email | Traditional

                            <*> 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/









                          • murilo luciano filho
                            Guys, you are making me alert! Take a look and let your mech theory come true! I ll be around all the time, full of arguments! Thanx! Best! Murilo To:
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jan 25 7:18 AM
                            Guys,
                            you are making me alert!
                            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 <laurent.damois@...>
                            Yes and we have 2 différents 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 différents results (the first air expansion became cold, the second air expansion became hot, 2 process in closed loop)



                            2014/1/25 Jack R Welch <jack82721@...>
                            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:
                             
                            Reply @ Alius
                            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 <sagealius@...>
                             
                            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 <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:
                            free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                            <*> Your email settings:
                                Individual Email | Traditional

                            <*> 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/











                          • murilo luciano filho
                            1+ file. To: laurent.damois@gmail.com CC: jack82721@yahoo.com; free_energy@yahoogroups.com From: avalanchedrive@hotmail.com Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:18:18
                            Message 14 of 18 , Jan 25 8:33 AM
                            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,
                            you are making me alert!
                            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 <laurent.damois@...>
                            Yes and we have 2 différents 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 différents results (the first air expansion became cold, the second air expansion became hot, 2 process in closed loop)



                            2014/1/25 Jack R Welch <jack82721@...>
                            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:
                             
                            Reply @ Alius
                            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 <sagealius@...>
                             
                            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 <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:
                            free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                            <*> Your email settings:
                                Individual Email | Traditional

                            <*> 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/













                          • Christopher Strevens
                            All energy is free but there are no perpetual motion machines. You donÆt put the energy into coal but you do have to dig it up. A steam engine is a free
                            Message 15 of 18 , Jan 25 10:58 AM

                              All energy is free but there are no perpetual motion machines.

                               

                              You don’t put the energy into coal but you do have to dig it up. A steam engine is a free energy machine. It runs on Gibbs free energy. My engine runs on deuterium.

                               

                              From: free_energy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:free_energy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of murilo luciano filho
                              Sent: 25 January 2014 16:33
                              To: Laurent Damois; free_energy@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [free_energy] Perpetual Motion [1 Attachment]

                               

                               

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

                              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,
                              you are making me alert!
                              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 <laurent.damois@...>

                              Yes and we have 2 différents 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 différents results (the first air expansion became cold, the second air expansion became hot, 2 process in closed loop)

                               

                               

                              2014/1/25 Jack R Welch <jack82721@...>

                              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:

                               

                              Reply @ Alius

                              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 <sagealius@...>

                               

                              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 <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:

                              free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Groups Links

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

                              <*> Your email settings:
                                  Individual Email | Traditional

                              <*> 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/

                               

                               

                               

                               

                               

                               

                               

                               

                            • lysdexia@sbcglobal.net
                              ... ether := field. ... Do not abuse the meaning of is/be. Mass is not vis any more than width is volume. http://dictionary.com/browse/is
                              Message 16 of 18 , Jan 26 12:40 AM
                                --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, John Berry <berry.john22@...>
                                > 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.

                                ether := field.

                                > 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.

                                Do not abuse the meaning of is/be. Mass is not vis any more than width is volume.

                                http://dictionary.com/browse/is
                                http://dictionary.com/browse/has
                                http://dictionary.com/browse/does

                                > 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
                                > Hutchisongot, oh and ghosts and poltergeists become possible too, as
                                > does explaining
                                > telepathy, links between twins etc...

                                In my model the field and mote are identical, a corollary to Newton's, Coulomb's, and Yukawa's laws--namely, their r-domain (which := field)--which bound motes below and to Hubble's, Snell's, and Einstein's laws which bound motes above.

                                The Hutchison effect meseems magntostriction, diathermy, and Lenz effect with hýsteresis.

                                Gosts/eýd¾monia/cacod¾monia must be the result of Argand bodies: http://www.quora.com/Quantum-Mechanics/Why-dont-we-see-quantum-weirdness-in-everyday-world/answer/Autymn-Castleton.

                                > 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.

                                No: http://google.com/search?q=%22ideomotor+effect%22; http://google.com/search?q=mesmerism.

                                What I ween from this new confirmation of Orchestrated Objective Reduction is that the neocortex is environmentally persistent; its kaotic or anharmonic modes are what forbid its decay: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm. However we do not often see gosts at streams, seas, or anywhere wet or much outdoors which should mean that these short circuit wit (vis/pneýma).

                                > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, George Wiseman <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.
                                Another hick who can't spell its.
                                > >
                                > > > 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?

                                Yep: http://www.quora.com/Physics/Have-the-known-true-laws-of-physics-ever-been-broken-ever/answer/Autymn-Castleton.

                                I would soon like to formalize a new class of device called ICE, the Intensive Curl Engine, that undoes these exact laws. One kind is my brainchild, the Perpetual Radiator-Conductor, that exploits the discontinuity between the Stefan-Boltzmann and Newton-Kelvin laws, namely the disparate equilibrium temperatures of two bodies. Also I believe the Scharnhorst effect allows one to harness negative vis to provide a perpetual cold sink to undo the Nernst theorem, most likely in the potential minimum of iron-nickel nuclei.

                                However I need to read up on radiative heat transfer to look for contraindications, such as if emissivity varies on the same order as temperature or conductivity (doubtful) or if there's a normal workfunction between two neutral sinks in contact (doubtful), and for what exactly happens at medial boundaries, but there may not be fele leads.

                                -Aut
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.