Correction to a schematic within my text

The connections joining my circuit to the Starter Coils of an off-the-shelf, single phase, A/C induction motor, plus the connection between the Starter Coils and the Main Motor Coils, should be welded – not soldered with rosin paste flux – to reduce resistance to extremely negligible values at these joints. These connections are in areas of positive resistance which require the encouragement of current and the discouragement of voltage arising from any resistance. Hence, the use of 10 AWG wire is encouraged in these areas (or whatever gauge wire the motor uses for its Starter Coils). In fact, the oscilloscope tracings of my simulations describe these areas to be completely lacking in voltage, hence: zero voltage!

This may seem improbable, but is true. This is caused by my circuit inducing a phase shift between its current and its voltage of 180° of separation giving my circuit a negative zero power factor.

In case you don't agree that such a condition could exist, then I will back up my claim by quoting: Loren Rademacher, a member of the BSEE, who describes such a condition is possible indicating the preponderance of capacitive reactance over inductive reactance within a circuit. — http://is.gd/negpowfact

Other areas of my circuit exhibit negative resistance in which resistance gives a boost to the performance of my circuit rather than becoming an impediment. So, soldering with rosin paste flux can be applied to joints in these other areas along with the use of conventional gauge wires for making the connections between my circuit and the motor.

Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter is Monopolar since it is Grounded into Counter-Space for its Reference

The 12V merely lost its amp-hours, not its voltage? -- my guess

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turion TRY THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK> IT CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS> Take every precaution you can think of when you do this, because batteries can explode and they will seriously injure you. I may have already put this experiment out there, but here it is again. I did it for some folks last night and blew a couple people away. Here is one way to prove my theory that when you run a load l(ike an electric motor) on a battery, the energy in the battery is NOT consumed by the load. It actually goes from one side of the battery to the other side until both sides of the battery are equal. As it travels THROUGH the motor to get there, the motor runs. When the two sides have equalized, there is no movement of current from one side to the other, so the load quits running and we say the battery is "dead." Proof? Take a battery and connect a 12 volt motor to it. Run it until it won't run anymore. According to what we have been taught, the battery is dead. Not so. Take a D cell battery. Connect the negative of the D cell to the negative of your 12 volt battery. Now connect the motor between the positive of the 12 volt battery and the positive of the D cell battery. It will run until you blow up the D cell and kill yourself. Why will the Cell blowup?It is charging while the motor is completing the circuit, and charging to a much higher voltage than it was designed for.

The voltage in a car battery must be governed by the mass of lead vs the acidity of the electrolyte?

While the amp-hours of a battery is the displacement between the two?

Since lead salt still contains the same quantity of electrolytic ions as before, no voltage has been spent? It has merely been converted from a more usable form into a less, or non-usable, form as far as amp-hours are concerned?

So, your experiment validates that voltage can be borrowed without any further cost since the car battery is already dead to prove this point?

The amp-hours of the car battery are also not undergoing any cost since they've been already spent?

The experiment is spending the amp-hours of the D-cell at a ridiculous rate of voltage -- determined by the dead car battery's latent voltage -- causing the D-cell to explode?

I suspect that the car battery's voltage was kinetic and then became potential? This is confusing since we often times call voltage a potential? I guess this is not necessarily true dependent on whether or not the battery is dead? Then, its voltage is in potential form, while a "live" battery's voltage is in kinetic format?

The D-cell must have reorganized the potential voltage of the dead car battery into a more active format to engage the amp-hours of the D-cell, but at the wrong rate of discharge more suitable for the car battery and dangerous for the D-cell?

Brilliant, dude!

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turion ..... So when you connect the motor between the battery and a D cell, you have HALF the potential you started out with, which is a CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT minus what is in the D cell. To best see what is possible, drain the D cell before you start. Now you are starting with TWO "dead" batteries. That's according to what we have been taught. All the energy was used up by the loads. NOT!!! If you connect the motor as I have described, it will run. Because the potential between HALF the 12 volt battery and the dead D cell battery is enough to run the crap out of the motor, and will overcharge the D cell and may cause it to explode.The motor sees Half the 12 volt battery on one side, and half what was in the D cell battery on the other side (The D cell went through the same process as the 12 volt battery did) and that potential difference is huge. Current will flow and the motor will run until the 1/2 12 volt battery is equal with the 1/2 the 1.5 volt battery, the current flow drops lower than what the motor requires to run, or the small battery explodes.

Oh,...
I get it...
By following the line of reasoning in the last paragraph, above, a new battery has been constructed out of two dead batteries! Voila! Brilliant, dude!

In other words, the displacement of amp-hours via a difference of potentials between two batteries may be carried on indefinitely until we run out of smaller batteries with which to reconstruct (ad hoc) a new, but temporary battery of lower overall amp-hours than the first in a long chain of temporary marriages.

So, once the D-cell explodes (well, wait a minute; we could put a resistor inline to thwart its explosion)....
Rewritten,...
Once the D-Cell is drained, a new battery could be constructed out of a hearing aid battery and the "dead" D-cell. This pairing won't be able to run the same motor (more likely run a flashlight), but will be a thematic replica of the prior makeshift pair of batteries (the D-cell plus the dead car battery).

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

Well...what I was going to say (to clarify myself) before I read your last paragraph...
The displacement of the car battery's amp-hours turns the acidic electrolyte into lead salt. This is the chemical equivalence of equalizing the voltage at both terminals.

Yet, I'm not contributing much of any significance to this discussion. You're right on, there. Time for me to bow out.....

Matter and its associated Mass does not Exist

Listening to Eric brings my atomic ideology to a fast halt! If there be no mass for protons and electrons, then how can the neutrons carry all of their mass by themselves? The whole foundation of Einstein's E=MC² relationship hinges on the existence of matter in order for it to have a relation with energy. Yet, without mass, there can be no matter!

Also, my use of the term of the: electromotive force to substitute for Eric's use of his term of the: dielectric (to replace conventional use of the term of the: electrostatic), and my use of the term of the: magnetomotive force to substitute for Eric's use of his term of: magnetism, fall apart since I no longer need to marry Eric's vision with that of the Relativist. They are mutually exclusive since Relativism is a fantasy while Eric deals in reality.

When Eric is laying out the relationships between the weight of a car coming to a stop, he could just as easily be deriving a backwards process in which electrodynamics creates the illusion of mass and matter when there is no such material substance. Nor does chemistry ultimately exist.

It's just all electrodynamic processes.

So, please pardon my vernacular blooper!

But, please do not ignore my concepts since they still hold true. It's just my use of terminology must fit in with that of Eric's to prevent confusion from spawning as the result of my theories about electrodynamics.

So, whenever I say: electromotive force, I should have been saying the: dielectric all along.

And, whenever I say: magnetomotive force, I should be saying: magnetism.

Please accept my apology for mucking this subject up when I only want to make it more clear.

What is a Negative Power Factor (Bravo!)

Read Loren Rademacher's answer to What is a negative power factor? What are the reasons for this? Is there any harmful effect on a small capacity gas engine for a negative power factor? on Quora

Tesla's Longitudinal Electricity - Eric Dollard, Peter Lindemann & Tom B...

Beating the Physicist's Conservation of Energy Law

Visit...
http://vinyasi.info/realsim?startCircuit=energy-synthesis.txt

I've updated it. For by rereading it, I realize that a bunch of attorneys wrote the Physicist's Conservation of Energy Law. And then Einstein went and misrepresented that law to us by giving us a false sense of enlarged difficulty as to how to play with it and requiring a huge government grant for nuclear physics experiments when my simple circuit accomplishes it.

Like any good attorney, the truth is hidden in plain sight. Ergo, it has a loop hole in it....

It's not as complicated as Einstein has led us to believe. When performing mind-blowing time dilation thought experiments using a pair of twins and sending one away in a rocket at nearly the speed of light, no such fantasy is required. The following illustrates how easy it is to "beat" this law.

Shifting the voltage versus the current sine waves of A/C electricity is sufficient enough to dilate time RELATIVE TO EACH WAVE BY COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER'S VIEWPOINT.

Isn't that what the two twins experiment was all about? Shifting their points of view regarding their individual time-frames relative to one another? !!!

And if the shift skips past a mere 90 degrees of zero power factor all the way to 180 degrees of separation, then we will have succeeded in dilating time in a manner that does not decompose electricity into its constituent ingredients. This decomposition occurred with the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph Cable in the latter part of the 1800s, but was solved by Oliver Heaviside by wrapping the copper core of the oceanic cable with iron ribbon or iron wire to boost the magnetic portion of the signal which had been decaying. The electrostatic portion had been doing fine. But it takes both halves to make a whole of electricity.

Electrical engineers have been doing all along the decomposition half of Eric's electrical theory (whenever a transmission line's power factor shifts to zero). By comparison, Eric keeps telling us he has done BOTH TYPES OF MANIPULATION.

See what a trick it has been for the attorneys, turned physicists, have misguided us yet again by translating Eric's "decomposition of electricity into its constituent ingredients" into the electrical engineer's phrase, "zero power factor"!!!!!

It's that simple provided that it doesn't cost us more than the outcome to accomplish this. Op-amps are always given to us as an example of how to shift voltage relative to current by 180 degrees.

Magicians love to misguide our attention away from what's really good to know! Because opamps will cost us too much to accomplish what I can do using mere micro amps undergoing simulation in my circuit....

My non-theory English and Spanish "Extending the Range of an EV...etc" books at Amazon and Payhip manages to fulfill these requirements...

http://amazon.com/author/vinyasi

http://payhip.com/vinyasi

A Shorted Motorized Transformer Simulated in Micro-Cap (SPICE)

Physics Lies to Us

It's not energy which is conserved; it's force. Energy is recreated all the time to compensate for energy being destroyed by the passage of time whether or not we make use of energy. But forces cannot be created, nor can they be destroyed. Furthermore, forces are the ingredients of energy. And the word: “atom” designates the final frontier of breaking down matter. But electrical energy is *not* atomic. It can be broken down into forces which we can easily manipulate in a simple circuit without having to use atom smashers funded by huge government grants.

Electrical energy is constantly being renewed from eternal forces which are conserved. By knowing how to manipulate electrical energy, it is possible to recreate electrical energy by reusing enough of its constituent forces to prevent running out of electrical energy. To explain this phenomenon, people entering a movie theater may help....

Let's say we need to distribute 100 tickets for a show, but we have only 50 people who are willing to see this show. So, we ask each person to enter the theater twice and tabulate them twice. This analogy breaks down since paying for a ticket does not consume anyone's financial resources if we consider that a force cannot be consumed by its use. And we cannot use a force, nor can we spend time, since time is one of these three subatomic forces unavailable for our use. Time consumes itself. And we cannot consume energy, either. Only time consumes energy.

Time is the only force permitted by Nature to consume energy. It does this by destroying the temporal bond which interconnects the two remaining forces of: the electromotive and magnetomotive. Time can also heal this destruction by reuniting these two forces and renew electricity in a “live” circuit.

These three forces replace the atomic triad we have come to know as: neutrons, protons and electrons.

Neutrons are a label which hides their true nature. They are not generally known as time. Yet, time is what a neutron is. Time determines a neutron's frequency which determines the atomic number and the isotopic variation for each element of the periodic chart.

Protons are another name for the magnetomotive force. And electrons are, in actuality, the electromotive force. This is why electrons exhibit electron volts due to the strength of their EMF.

So in this movie theater analogy, it's as if each person is not charged money for buying a ticket, but is merely tabulated and then credited for having paid for each time they enter the theater without depleting anyone's wallet. This is how electrical energy at the atomic level actually works.

But chemistry is different. In particular, the chemistry of a battery is different. Chemistry and nuclear fusion and fission are limited to the mass of materials supplying these forms of energy, such as: batteries and nuclear warheads.

In contrast, electricity does not result from the mass of copper material carrying electricity through a circuit. It results from two spatial forces: the magnetomotive force and the electromotive force cooperating in time. Time binds these two forces of space together in a tenuous relationship which is constantly being destroyed and renewed with or without our intervention.

A Fundamental Discussion of Electrodynamic Theory in Two Parts

What is the fundamental force of Nature? Is it a bidirectional dimension of time, or is it a thematic pair of complimentary opposite Vectors, aka Entropy vs Negentropy, aka Activity vs Transcendence?

Hope Transcends Ignorance

The fact that we have to include time whenever we measure electrical energy incontrovertibly demonstrates that electrical energy – at the very least – is molecular; it is not atomic. And furthermore, this validates, through the use of simple logic, that the Law of Conservation (in physics) cannot conserve whatever is decomposable, but must explicitly conserve what is indivisible, only. Hence, we have been lying to ourselves, collectively, all along, whenever we claim that electrical energy (and possibly other forms of energy as well as electrical) can be conserved or must be conserved whenever we boldly proclaim to one another that “Energy entering into a circuit, or a component, or a portion of a component (such as the dielectric material of a capacitor) must equal whatever energy exits”. Since electrical energy is dependent upon time for its valid and accurate and meaningful measurement, then this precludes electrical energy from being conserved since time is preventing its conservation from occurring. And if we exclude time from our perception of electrical energy, then we're left with only force – two to be precise: the electromotive and the magnetomotive force. It is these forces of electricity which are conservable since time does not limit their existence. It is their mutual cooperation within a context of time which manifests electricity. And it is their disassociation which decomposes electricity returning it to its constituent ingredients. Free energy is, thus, an impossibility since we have to pay for it by reusing force. Yet, electricity is constantly renewing itself from the reuse of forces which are not consumable. For if they were consumable, then they too would not be conservable. But their exclusion from any consideration of timeliness protects their conservation. For time wears away at everything and ultimately consumes itself by liberating ourselves from the ignorant foolishness of believing in self-contradictions. And all for what is our foolishness?.... To maintain the status quo of confusion! That's what!

A confused and blindly self-unaware population is one which may easily be controlled (aka, taken advantage of) by greedy people who want – not money, for they have plenty of that already, but – power. Power is an elixir which never satiates its victim. Instead, it merely creates more thirst for itself without limit.

Ironically, power is what we all want to make our lives easier. Yet, power is strategically monopolized to ensure that it never gets liberally distributed lest the people revolt and retrieve their sovereignty.

Another illogical fallacy is the maxim in which, “Time heals all wounds”. Nay!

It is the transcendence of time which diverts us from time long enough (if even for a fraction of a second) to perceive things the way they really are and not as we would have them to be.

Truth is under lock and key while false modesty runs rampant. It is these false modesties of self-inoculated hypocrisy which rule over us despite our immodest proclamations that we are a free and noble people.

Far from it.

Yet, the fact is.... that I can say these things which proves that hope is within reach.

What is a renewable energy source?

Everything is probably renewable. But I can think of three right away …

Coal, natural gas and petroleum are all renewable energy sources.

Why?

Because of the lie which has been taught to us that dinosaurs and other plants and animals falling into pits became tar deposits. Nor did they become oil deposits. Neither did they become gas deposits.

It is a scientific fact, repeatable in any laboratory, that the ingredients of: heat, pressure, time, limestone, water and iron oxide will make petroleum products just as authentic as the ones we claim will run out if we don't switch to renewables in this generation.

Yet, anyone who has made a study of oil fields will tell you that if you cap an oil well and wait twenty years, the field will have refilled itself and be ready for more pumping! This is due to there being a series of fields – each one beneath another – and all of them connected in series so that whenever the one above becomes depleted there is always another field immediately below it to replenish the one above.

So …

There is no energy shortage. There never was, nor will there ever be!

Tesla liked to boast how he could produce radium for a buck a pound a century ago. {The value of the United States dollar has dropped so much over the course of 100 years that equates to about $10k in the currency of today!} If he could do that, then what prevents that technique from turning nuclear power into a renewable energy source! NOT THAT I'D WANT TO USE THE STUFF! Unless Tesla also figured out how to safely handle radium. I wouldn't be too surprised if he did since his X-ray machine was safer and twenty times more powerful than the X-ray machine invented by Roentgen after Tesla had already invented his own variety. {But of course, Tesla never got the credit!}

Is Free Energy Renewable?

Renaming free energy “renewable energy” is the politically correct thing to do these days given the fact that using the former terminology is the quickest method of getting booted from a forum and permanently locked out. And it makes sense, from the standpoint of accuracy in speech, to call it renewable since force is being reused to generate an endless supply of energy. It's just that I'm addicted to the thought that if something is endless, then it must be for free – right?

To recapitulate...

Force is not tied to time, so it is reusable. Energy is tied to time, so that makes energy renewable since newness implies a sense of timeliness as to whether energy is old energy getting spent or new energy getting revived.

If it is old energy getting spent, then it involves a positive resistance working against the positive flow of current traveling from areas of high voltage and proceeding towards areas of lower voltage.

Yet, if it is new energy getting itself revived, then it involves negative resistance working with the flow of current traveling from areas of low voltage, or areas lacking any voltage, and moving towards areas of higher voltage.

Energy is Molecular. Force is Atomic.

The dinitrogen molecule has a triple valence bond among its pair of nitrogen atoms. This bond is energy. It binds the two nitrogen atoms together using three bonds storing a great deal of energy in this energetic relationship. So much so, that it takes a lot of voltage - around 70,000 volts of a positive polarity - to split this triple bond apart to harness this tremendous energy. This was the technique used by: Herman Anderson, Stanley Meyer, and the Nazi's air-fuel bomb used on the Russian front during WWII.

This is a molecular energetic arrangement among, and between, two nitrogen atoms. This is an arrangement in time. Without time, this arrangement has no meaning.

Energy is tied to time. Electrical energy, as wattage, is measured in terms of time (Joules per second). Energy is bound to time. Without time, energy has no meaning, for energy is a molecular relationship among the individual atoms which comprise this relationship.

Electricity is energy. Electricity flows down a wire. This wire is composed of copper atoms linked together via their valence shell electrons. So even here, energy is molecular. Energy is not atomic.

Force is atomic, because forces are the ingredients which make up energy. Force is not tied to time when it is considered by itself. Not until forces are tied to time do they become energized at the molecular level of the interactions among atoms. It is these molecular interactions among atoms which constitutes an energetic interplay.

So, I'm not saying anything new. We already know this to be true, that: energy is not atomic, hence, energy cannot be conserved. Energy is molecular. Force is atomic.

Due to these distinctions, we have been confusing ourselves and one another over a fictitious Conservation of Energy Law which was never valid to begin with.

And we have never questioned whether or not force must be conserved since we've never bothered to investigate from where does force arise?

If it must be restricted to conversion from another force, then a new Conservation of Force would be installed as a new Law to replace the previously misconstrued Conservation of Energy mandate.

But such is not the case, because this would be an inherent contradiction!

Force cannot convert into another force since time does not get involved with force. Conversion, and the laws of thermodynamics, only pertains to energy - not force - since conversion necessitates time for change (conversion) to occur. Since there is no time associated with a force, then there cannot be any conservation of force.

So, where does force come from?

If force is incontrovertible, then force must be eternal as well as being non-conservable.

This makes force effortlessly and endlessly perpetual if we are to insist on judging force in terms of time. But again, this is a mistake.

If we must put a temporal stamp upon force, then let it be regarded (defined) in terms of what it is not. It is not now, it is not before now, nor can it be after now.

Like force, time may be regarded all by itself apart from any association with force. This makes time eternally now without a past, nor a future. This puts to rest any theory of a Big Bang for this could only arise as a fictional misunderstanding if held to be true by those who insist on believing in a Big Bang that is required to initiate time.

Time doesn't need any help. It always is and forever will be.

It is force which needs the help of time to manifest the Creation we have come to almost take for granted. Almost....if we continue to insist on fabricating half-truths and confusion regarding Creation's ultimate nature along with its essential nature.

Official and Authoritative Definitions of Overunity are Non-Existent and their Redirects are Misleading.

Online dictionaries and Wikipedia don't even have an entry for the word: overunity. They merely redirect to their definition of perpetual motion which is not at all relevant. It implies that the term does not exist except in terms of perpetual motion which it defines in terms of no input of energy from an external source. This is not the definition of overunity.

Overunity is synonymous with a coefficience of performance greater than one indicating that more energy exited the system than was used to operate it. This does not mean making something from nothing.

Heat pumps are conventional examples using only a fraction of electricity to power them while transporting a much larger thermal energy gathered from the sun.

This is not to be confused with efficiency since a heat pump may be less than 100% efficient (and usually is), yet still manages to deliver more solar energy than the electricity used to transport that energy to the user. This is overunity and the benefit of not abusing each other with the misuse of our language.

Mass merely Determines the Rate of Thermodynamic Conversion of Electrical Energy. Mass does not Impose any Limits to the Synthesis or Decomposition of Electrical Energy.

Mass determines...

1. The rate of conversion of...
1. Electricity converting into heat.
2. Electricity converting into a magnetic field.
3. Electricity converting into a magnetic field to yield mechanical motion.
4. Electricity converting into the chemistry of a battery during its recharge.
5. The chemistry of a battery converting into electricity during its discharge.
2. Or, the limit of conversion of...
1. The nuclei of matter transmuting into something else due to fusion or fission during a nuclear event such as: the explosion of an atomic bomb.

Mass does not determine electrical output since that is determined by the reactance of its coils and capacitors.

Did you ever hear of a limit to reactance? No! Why?

Because capacitive reactance is determined by frequency. It is not determined by some arbitrary limit imposed by anyone's policy of what is the proper reactance of a capacitor. The same holds for the complex reactance of inductors and capacitors.

Thus, the high frequency of my overunity motorized transformer is the direct result of applying the formulas, above, to the creation of a transient which amplifies the extremely low voltage input into a very large wattage output without any significant drain of current made upon that voltage source.

How much energy does it take to run a sine wave (signal) generator? The answer is: 9V to 12V regardless of the frequency being produced! And regardless of the amplitude (wattage) of the transient outcome resulting from the signal generator feeding my circuit simulated in the Micro-Cap version of Berkeley SPICE.

The only factor determining the output of my invention is the frequency of its input – not its voltage input. {In fact, voltage at the input may kill the production of transients if the source voltage is not limited to mere micro volts!} And the only factor determining the conversion of its output is the mass of its main motor coils and its rotor coils.

Frequency is potential energy. Wattage is kinetic energy. Wattage is what I pay for by way of what does it cost to run a circuit. Frequency costs me nothing yet will determine my circuit's outcome!

Transients are runaway surges which can overload a circuit, and destroy it, if left unchecked. Transients achieve this runaway condition due to their partial isolation from both the source voltage of a circuit and its load. Thus, a battery is so simple – by its design – that no isolation is possible and, thus, no surging transient can ever hamper its safe operation.

This partial isolation of a transient limits its load to a light condition and is never allowed to exceed this condition or else the transient would die.

This lightly loaded condition was described by Jim Murray concerning his Transforming Generator which, whenever shorted, created a runaway condition which could eventually destroy itself if he didn't immediately shut it off.

Unfortunately, Jim never got to patent his invention here in the United States due to a prior claim the United States Military had already made upon his invention prior to the late 1970s when Jim applied for a patent, here, in the U.S. So, he was forced to patent his device in Europe. But there's no money there for development (to speak of) by comparison to the funding which is available in the United States, so I am assuming that is why he turned his attention to other projects which might pay off and abandoned any further development of this device.

I control the production of transients to ensure their self-destructive nature does not take over the circuit, yet merely gives me overunity: more kinetic energy exiting the circuit than enters into it.

Transients increase their energy by raising their frequency. And the reactance of a circuit's coils and capacitors is directly related to its inherent frequency. If this frequency should become modified by a native transient, then no stable output is possible despite a non-varying input voltage and non-varying input frequency.

Transients were a severe problem on Edison's transmission line in New York city over a century ago when his power company was inaugurated. These transients were augmented by the lack of frequency in a D/C network.

Tesla's A/C transmission system was not in any sort of danger from transients since Tesla was using an A/C production of energy which already imposes a frequency of its own (60 Hz in America and 50 Hz in Europe) to help shut out transients from infecting its network. It's not totally immune to transients, but is a whole lot safer with less risk.

If we give personal pronouns (meaningless names) to every energy entity entering into the dielectric material separating the two plates of a capacitor, we will find that a unique set of individual entities exits the dielectric as do enter it.

To put this another way...

There is no proof to verify the identity of energy exiting the dielectric material of a capacitor has the same set of identities as that which entered into it.

This removes the limitation to assume that energy is atomic, or that energy is nameless, or that energy is a resolute entity fixed in time. Energy is as tenuous as the wind; yet, force is not.

If a manufacturing plant creates a product, they put a product code onto the bottom of that product along with a date of its manufacture to verify the unique identity of that product so that the customer can return it for repair or recall or refund should anything go wrong with it.

Well...

Energy is not atomic and energy is not eternal. It is synthesized from its constituent ingredients of the electromotive and magnetomotive forces within a context of time. This puts a time stamp onto energy as to when it is put together and whenever it is disassembled, for energy is a tenuous byproduct of eternal forces which have no time stamp or else they could not be eternal!

The 180 Degree Separation among Current and Voltage Sine Waves *must* be Accomplished without the Direct Application of Force

Transient amplification of a weak, high frequency signal must occur as a natural consequence to its partial isolation within a circuit – not by forcing it by artificially inducing a shift in phase emanating from voltage sources. Or else the circuit's output will be killed and, thus, deny any overunity from ever materializing....

90 degree phase shifting by force.

180 degree pase shifting by force.

A normal and conventional circuit performance without transient amplification, nor any attempt to modify the phase relations of its sine waves.

What's wrong with corporate America?

The greatest harm corporate America has done to our self is to convince ourselves of how valuable it is to lie to our self, by our self, from our self, on their behalf – to do their dirty work to our self so that they don't have to do the lying themselves and remain aloof and apart – far from the madding crowd – without sullying their reputation one iota.

We never tie time to force. We always treat force as a separate entity apart from time. Yet, we always measure and interpret our energetic results in terms of units per time. So, why do we do this?

Because energy is a fictional construct of force plus time. That's why the atom is a fictional construct of solidity imparted to our desire to delude ourselves into thinking, and assuming, that matter is solid – and by association – we are somehow also solid and stable and secure in the knowledge that we have any meaning or merit or usefulness to our own self.

But I thought integrity meant something? And integrity is how we don't lie to ourselves no matter how many lies corporate America gets us to lie to each another.

So, we don't need delusional solidity to give us a secure fuzzy feeling about our own self-image and the reputation which that spawns. Integrity, alone, is sufficient.

And integrity of knowledge is superior to the solidity of our delusions about matter, energy and the atomic function behind electricity.

For these delusions support the vested interests of corporate America. They do not, and cannot, support our sovereign interest in our superiority to a fictional corporate entity who is willfully substituting for a living, flesh and blood anthropomorphic creature of divine inspiration.

So....

Energy is not atomic. If it were, it would be indivisible. Yet it is divisible into its constituent ingredients of time and various forces which go to make up energy – any kind of energy. But let's begin this discussion with just one sort of energy: electrical energy.

The electromotive force is one force which comprises electricity. The magnetomotive force is another force which comprises electricity. These two forces – when placed into a context of time – give us all we need to know about electricity without the glamour of nuclear physics and its limiting factor of E=MC^2 except for one salient feature: how far can we take an experiment in transient amplification before we blow up the copper wire of a circuit, or melt the iron cores inside its coils?

The answer? We already know the answer in the form of: what are the valence charges of the copper wire? What is their electron voltage holding the atoms of copper together in a wire versus the spiraling escalation of a runaway transient in that wire?

If a runaway transient should escalate beyond the valence electron volts holding a copper wire together, then kaboom it must go the route of copper microfine dust. This is the value to which E=MC^2 holds toward electrodynamic theory and no further – as in: what are the safe limits of endurance to which a circuit may withstand regarding the amplification of its wattage via runaway transients?

That's as far as nuclear physics and Einstein and the Law of Conservation and Thermodynamics has to go before the physicist steps out of line by sticking their collective noses into affairs which do not concern themselves.

Notice...

I did not say: “getting something from nothing”, for that is the definition to a perpetual motion machine of the first kind,* not: “getting more from less” – which is what I am proposing.

* Wikipedia: Perpetual_motion#Classification

But if we should make this mistake on behalf of physicists and corporate vested interests (which they want us to make upon ourselves), then we are idiots to shoot ourselves into our own feet out of fear of rejection from the lemming crowd of submission to common sense. That's our fault and no one else's....

What did Eisenhower say regarding this fear which we have destroyed ourselves with? He said, “Beware the military industrial complex”.

What is this complex?

It is a corporate machine far excessive in largess to our puny little tenuous self which will outlive our flesh and blood existence since that machine is a legal entity without a lifespan save whatever support it gets from us for its continued existence.

This is not rocket science which I am proposing, here. This could have been “figured out” by anyone willing to think for themselves – trained by robotic simulators who don't have any vested interest in corporate policy (unless the simulator in question is EveryCircuit).

This is simple stuff by far...and it scares us into fearing the loss of our reputation should tolerance for me last for a duration longer than it takes to sneeze me away.

What the ***k is Einstein Talking About?

What the ***k is Einstein Talking About?

E=MC^2. Energy equals Mass times the Square of the Speed of Light

What was Einstein referring to when he made this bold statement?

He couldn't possibly be referring to the atom since the atom is not the smallest unit of matter. We know this, now, to be true. Nor is the atom the smallest unit of energy. Democritus thought it was the smallest unit of all matter and, thus, penned this word atom to indicate "no further divisible".

Einstein's equation is pointlessly invalid for its lack of clarity. It does not distinguish vectorial forces from their composited lines of force. This oversight turns a blind eye to the bidirectionality of time at the subatomic level and ignores the monopolar north and south poles of bidirectional, subatomic force.

These distinctions of mine qualify Einstein's famous equation in such a way that the speed of light becomes – not invalid, but – superfluous since he assumed a constancy of time whenever the speed of light is measured by a single observer. Yet, even time may appear to accelerate or decelerate – or, even, alter its direction – for a single observer by shifting the phase of current versus its voltage in an A/C circuit by a separation of 180°.

This need not be achieved by way of operational amplifiers since opamps require additional energy and, thus, limit any gain to underunity. Instead, an A/C induction motor may be used if it is rewired to make use of its starter coils plus the addition of a few other components. These alterations, made to what is otherwise considered to be a commonplace device, will induce a non-transitory surge defying the misappropriated theoretical limitation imposed by our unquestioning belief in the Laws of Thermodynamics. The only limitation will be the mass of the motor's components and the frequency of its voltage source.

This misappropriation is due to applying an Energy Conservation Law to forces – none of which come under the jurisdiction of any energy mandate. Force transcends energy. And time causes a composition of forces to interact creating the illusion of atomic energy when no such animal exists. Only atomic forces exist. Energy is a mirage just as motion resulting from moving cinematic images past our eye at 30 frames a second creates the illusion of a smooth, transitional movement blurring the distinctly, frozen images on film.

Energy is a mirage which we can measure. A force cannot be measured, but must be inferred if our observable measurements can make any sense under any circumstance in which energy seemingly materializes.

This simple, non-nuclear, manipulation of electrical force bypasses expensive government grants to achieve what only nuclear physicists have claimed possible. Yet, any garage mechanic or high school hobbyist can achieve similar results expending infinitely less resources.

The dangers of mismanaging the forces of electricity are similarly disastrous to the mismanagement of nuclear physics. No one wants to blow up their parent's garage! But who can blame those fortunate souls who have the curiosity and the will to succeed at liberating our collective insanity from the tyranny of slavery to the utility grid?

(2013) The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, endorsed by NASA scientists ...

My simulations of the Joseph Newman device...

https://josephnewman.info/

... all point to one oversight: they're fed by two voltage sources. One is the DC coming from the battery pack and chopped up by the commutator into square waves. The other is the high frequency AC coming from the rotating bar magnet.

Now, as everyone who has studied this knows, the bar magnet can't spin much faster than whatever RPM it can be hand cranked at. A little bit faster than its initial rate of spin as a consequence to the build up of voltage in the massive coil, but not much more than that. Certainly not enough to reach thousands of RPMs!

Yet, that is what is needed to fulfill Dr. Hasting's analysis in chapter six of Newman's book: a very high frequency sine wave of extremely low voltage coming from the rotating bar magnet. This will blend in the massive coil with the square waves of high voltage, low amperage coming from the battery pack and passing through the commutator. This will produce a complex wave form that will deliver a few milli amps back to the battery pack to recharge it just as Newman describes occurs in his machine and is corroborated by Dr. Hasting's analysis.

But how can this be? A rotating mass cannot spin much faster than a hand crank. So, where is this extra frequency input coming from to add to the slow rotation AC wave coming from the spinning bar magnet?

It's coming from the excitation of helium.

I'll let you in on a little secret which Newman never publicly admitted to. He used an idea that Byron Brubaker gave Newman for free several decades ago. Only recently has Byron forgiven Newman for never giving Byron any credit claiming, instead, that God gave this insight to Newman.

Well, if you look up the properties of helium, you'll find that it cannot respond to an electromagnetic field. But it can respond to an electrostatic field.

So, we wrap a canister of helium with an open-ended coil whose terminating wires don't connect to anything. They don't connect to the circuit. And they don't connect to each other. This will pickup EM from the massive coil surrounding this rotating canister and convert some of that EM into an electrostatic field of its own. This will excite the helium to emit an electromagnetic field of very high frequency, but low voltage, and thus satisfy my simulated predictions of what it takes to make Newman's device overunity.

What this canister is made of, I don't know. Byron gave me the story how this property has been known for many years -- probably more than a century is my guess.

Anyway, the story Byron told me is that this property was discovered when helium was filled inside a glass globe. The globe was wrapped with an open-ended coil.

So, whether Newman used a glass canister, or some other material for his canister (such as: iron or aluminum), I don't know and I don't care. For the important point to take home is to replace a solid bar magnet with a vessel of helium wrapped with an open coil.

Obviously, its rotation is still required since the coil has to respond to the magnetic field of the massive coil surrounding it. And it won't be able to respond if the canister is stationary.

So, there it is! Free energy from helium plus lots of copper wire and a few volts from a bunch of batteries which won't cost us any amp-hours!

Voila!!!

Check it out for yourself. Ask Byron. His Facebook and YouTube moniker is MX6Maximus.

Electrodynamic Atomic Model

I like to simulate circuits which make more efficient use of renewable resources by recycling the forces which comprise electricity.

We originally thought the atom was the simplest unit of matter. This was put forward by Democritus of ancient Greece. But we've since modified our thinking to make the subatomic particles and their corresponding waves more fundamental than the atom. These subatomics supersede the atom for qualifying the word. Yet, we've never bothered to change our usage of the word, atom, to redirect our attention to these subatomic elements. In other words, we've never stopped calling the atom an atom and, instead, call its subatomics by the term: atom. Are we confused? What is the fundamental unit of all matter? Certainly not the atom by present line of thinking!😲

Eric P. Dollard points the way. He defines electricity as consisting of three ingredients: time, dielectricity and magnetism. I would suggest an alternate choice of words to substitute for the last two: the electromotive force and the magnetomotive force, respectively.

In any event, time would no longer be a dimension. It would be a force, although not a spatial force, but a force nonetheless. In all likelihood, the neutron is the equivalent subatomic force substituting for the word: time, since a difference of inherent frequency can easily distinguish among the various atomic numbers (along with their various isotopes) on the periodic chart of the elements and their consequentially differing atomic weights. And the electromotive force is just another way to say: electrons – especially since electrons are known to possess a charge of electron volts. And the magnetomotive force is probably an acceptable term for the concept of the proton.

Why do I bring this up?

Because my simulations have managed to bring about a shift of current from voltage by 180° of separation in a circuit powered by a sine wave voltage source. The difference between my methods and that of, let's say: an operational amplifier (for example), is that my circuits don't require any additional voltage source like the plus or minus 15V required by op-amps. Instead...

A high frequency sine wave of extremely low voltage is fed into a transformer, or a motorized transformer, of at least two parallel coils to each side of this motor-transformer. With the help of a few other components, a surge develops which requires some kind of switching alternately collapsing and rebuilding mini-surges so that the total outcome reflects the RMS equivalent of a conventional motor and prevents this device from cooking or shredding itself whenever its surge develops to an extreme value. {This sort of thing has been known to happen to shorted motors which are lightly loaded. – See: Jim Murray's Transforming Generator, developed and tested during the 1970s.}

The consequence of this is: we no longer have to listen to TED talk speakers telling us that renewables are not economical if their output capacity is limited to their size, alone. We don't have to make a bigger solar panel to deliver more power. Nor do we have to increase the size of a wind farm to service the needs of a growing population since the use of transients to amplify an A/C system are an economical method of maximizing any power source, be it a renewable or something else.

I describe this method, in a book I've been developing multiple editions of, at Amazon since Wikimedia Commons removed all of my files, recently, claiming it was nonsense. That should be for you or I to decide since Commons implies commonly available. So, I went private hoping this will give me greater immunity from anyone hitting the delete key.

Extending the Range of Electric Vehicles by Maximizing their Amp-Hours – Kindle
o, en Español
Ampliación de la Gama de Vehículos Eléctricos al Maximizar sus Horas-Amperio – Kindle

Hello World!

This is my latest blog devoted to my discovery of publishing on Amazon. They make it so easy to self-publish. Thanks!