Background related to research:
2 years Electricity and Electronics
- 1982-84
34 weeks Control and Sensor Technology - 1986
Positive side: is able to think outside the box. My brain receives flashlights
illuminations when I think of a problem.
Negative side: Not all ideas I
have works.
Current Situation: Living on disability pension for the rest
of my life. Suffer from Paranoid Schizophrenia. On medication. Injection every second
week - 150mg/0.75ml Cisordinol. 4mg Cisordinol, 20 mg Zyprexa, before going to sleep.
2mg Cisordinol at lunchtime to dampening my symptoms. Zyprexa has made me fat, because
of sugar addict. I now weight 110 kg. Because of medicine I sleep 12 hours night and
are awake 12 hours day.
I am happy, dispite my problems. My problems hearing
voices that was not commanding, but commenting voices begun in 1996. Now I do not hear
the voices much, but instead I am telepatic and receives flashlight illumination. I
can think of a problem and know the solution at once.
I have researched a Bob Teal Magnipulsion 5 volt pulsed
electromagnet
and after some practical tests. I have come to the conclusion that the hysteresis
losses are too big and the inductive spike that can power lights is too small.
The effectivity is always less than 100%. However, if the electromagnet is
superconducted the effectivity might exceed 100%. You can see my experiment
here. The red diode to the left
is on when the energy is recovered . The red diode in the middle is on when
the electromagnet is OFF and the green diode is on when the electromagnet is ON.
The video has no sound and plays 8 times slower than normal.
Hi, everyone!
I have been thinking of how
Clemente FIGUERA, et al.
Infinite Energy Machine might have looked like in real life, as it is obvious that
it does not work according to the patents drawings. So I have come up with a mix of
Lawrence Tseung's magnetic frame
![New](hermes43.jpg)
I have not built it myself. First, I want to have your opinion. Will it work?
You will find its research status at this page:
http://gratisenergi.se/research.htm
For your Infinite Energy Machine you should be aware that an induced current
in the second coil depends solely on the change of magnetic flux, and so any static
flux you add by using permanent magnets won't change things at all. What you'll end up
with is a somewhat inefficient transformer. The output will be spiky since it's the
differential of the input square-wave, and thus is likely to be mis-measured by a
normal meter. Although the meters may thus show a gain, that's not real and if you put
the current through a resistor and measured the heat produced you'd prove it was lossy
rather than gainful.
If you really want to know how to get a continuous supply
of work output, then you should read
http://revolution-green.com/some-energy-basics/#comment-2376328811
(and the article and other comments) and spend a while thinking about it. As far as we
can tell we can't make or destroy energy itself - there is a fixed supply of it set at
the creation of the universe and changing the quantity would affect every other
particle in the universe. That is such a large barrier to overcome that we might as
well accept it can't be done. We don't really want energy, though; we want work to be
done and for that we need a movement of the energy we already have from one place to
another. What we are looking for is a way of either harnessing some natural
energy-flow to produce work or to fix things so that energy loops itself and gives us
a continuous supply of work.
The trick of getting a continuous loop of energy won't work using magnets and coils.
They will transfer energy around but won't loop it - you'll need to put work in going
one way and you get it out going the other, with a net result of zero work done in
ideal conditions. To get that loop you need to either use some quantum mechanics
tricks or some chemical tricks in order to get that energy naturally moving the way
you need it to. As far as I can tell you can't do it with random collections of
particles such as a gas or liquid unless you can add in an equivalent of a diode to
skew the probabilities away from the normal. It's worth looking at what Dan Sheehan
has been doing to get an idea of one way of actually making this work. I've covered a
few others that actually work (at a very low level) on R-G over the last few years.
Bottom line, though, is that using human-scale structures won't work, and that
you need to consider molecular scale in order to find a system that will actually
perform. The Second Law of Thermodynamic (2LoT) will apply to any large collection of
random particles, and all human-scale devices will have enough particles for 2LoT to
apply unless you use nanoscale structuring of it - you need to consider individual
collisions/interactions and skew them rather than using a large number at once and
trying to skew them as a group.
When you look at all the work that has gone into various forms of Free Energy, if the
principles worked then it's pretty certain that someone would have had something work.
Yes, there have been claims but somehow those working devices always got lost or
destroyed, and replications just didn't work either. The most likely reason is that
the principles are wrong. The article on R-G is the analysis of why those principles
fail, but more importantly puts forward a principle that will work based on
observations and their logical consequences. The really big point there is that we
have defined energy-flows even when a system is in thermal equilibrium. If we have a
flow of energy, we can extract work from it. It's that simple, in principle at least.
In practice it is of course more difficult since it does need engineering at the
micron level.
Best regards, Simon Derricutt
I found some success using a different methodology many other inventors used in the
past...
From around 1880 to 1950, prior to Einstein's physics, there were
countless FE devices popping up everywhere. They had a different more common sense and
independent mindset back then. They weren't preoccupied with math and equations but
more so hands on experiments and deductive reasoning. They were truly free and
independent thinkers because they were reclusive and most of the science we know
didn't even exist. Thus they were forced to think independently for themselves.
Another aspect was Tesla's quote to "Be alone, that is the secret of
invention; be alone, that is when ideas are born".
Tesla was correct and few if
any of the greatest scientists/inventors held popular beliefs and they were mostly
anti-social trouble makers. As Tesla implied, the secret is to be alone and cast off
all others false beliefs so we can see clearly beyond any external influences. Indeed,
this is the secret and logically we cannot do extraordinary things by blindly
following ordinary people with common beliefs.
However it's problematic because
many equate being alone and true independence as a contempt for others. Many have the
"either your with us or against us" mentality which relates to religion, politics and
populism. Many have the notion that we should be independent so long as we believe,
think and act as they do or risk be branded as heretics. Even more dangerous is that
many equate a rejection of most popular beliefs or opinions as ignorance. Thus we can
begin to see there are countless elements in play continuously trying to make us
conform to others.
Here is a methodology I have used and found some success
with based on Tesla's notion "to be alone".
1)We should seek as much knowledge
and understanding as we can but believe nothing as an absolute, always think
independently.
2)We should always do real experiments where possible and
approach them with a child like perspective as if we know nothing. It is this
presumption of thinking we already know the result which biases our thinking and
observations. If we go into an experiment with an open mind considering everything we
observe as new with no expectations the odds of learning something new increase
exponentially. This is true because we question everything from a new perspective.
Always ask how and why?...
3)Make mistakes, contrary to popular belief most
discoveries were made by accident and blind luck. We are creatures of habit and copy
what we see without even knowing it. We do the same things over and over and it's only
when we do something different that the result can change. As Viktor Schauberger said,
do the opposite of everyone else and you will be on the right track. Do something
completely different, make mistakes and learn from them.
4)Always use logic and
deductive reasoning to our advantage. We could ask, if the successful inventors
claimed the technology is easy why can so few replicate it, what's missing?. I have
found knowledge and understanding helps but it was curiosity and questioning
everything with an open mind which mattered most. Logically if the inventor knows
something we do not then we missed something. Thus it's not a matter of making
something work it's finding that missing piece of the puzzle.
Regards
AC - Onepower
Hi Hermes,
That was Hector
How to build a ZPE research lab at your home Version 1.27, 2004/07 by Hector (ARK Research)
Hector told us for so many years, to use his diodes plugs to catch
the reactive powers. But " I think" Ole told us, that it is useless to use reactive
powers with calculations to prove it. But from what i am reading lately, the new
things are made by people who doesn't know that, it can't be done!
Jean
Hi
Hermes,
I don't know who wrote that text on how to be an inventor, but whoever
it was got it right. Ditto the comment by Jean about reactive power, where the
apparent "free" power that's there is simply an artifact of the wrong method used to
measure the power.
One useful technique is to look at anomalies, where what
actually happens is against what current theory says should happen. It might be a very
small effect, or it may be quite obvious but because it always happens it's ignored.
Pretty central to things is
Noether's Theorem,
which basically says that where we have a symmetry it
will result in a conservation law. Best to go look that up, so you understand it. The
corollary of this is that if you find a way to break a specific symmetry, you also
have a way to violate the conservation law that results from that symmetry.
I've already pointed out one valid route to achieving free energy, which is based on
using the "reactionless" electric thrusters. Because this is pretty obvious, and
experiments are proceeding on various types of reactionless thrusters (with different
and incompatible theories as to why they work), and because the "leaky capacitor"
design can obviously be much improved, I'd expect we'll see such free energy
generators on sale within a decade and that we'll see experimental verification within
a year or two. The symmetry they violate is that the action is no longer equal and
opposite to the reaction, thus violating the conservation law for momentum and
allowing violation of the conservation law for energy too.
Over the last week
or so I've had some conversation with Eddie Sines. See
US 9,080,557 B2 . Here,
he noticed that when you cool a material below the superconductive transition
temperature Tc, a magnet placed on top of it will suddenly lift as the magnetic field
lines are expelled from the now-superconductor. Where does the energy come from to do
the work of lifting the magnet? Then back around 1999, it was found that when the
superconductor was just below Tc (thus superconductive), a low-power laser could
switch it off so that it became a normal conductor. See
https://www.robkalmeijer.nl/techniek/energie/optical_cooper_pair_breaking%20lee.pdf
for the data there.
Thus we can control the passage or not of a magnetic field
through a superconductor, and control the reluctance of a magnetic path using a
low-power (microwatts) of laser power. It should be pretty obvious that (a) this
breaks the normal symmetry of a change of magnetic field requiring as much energy as
you can get out by induction as a result of that changing field (Lenz's law), and (b)
violating that symmetry allows us to also violate CoE. Eddie's design is a bit more
complex because he's using magnetic vortices in the superconductor to connect flux
rather than using a superconductor to block it, but that's because it works better
that way.
Eddie is pretty close to having a working system. Producing the
tubular thin-film superconductors is a specialist job that he's had to develop
himself, but looks like could be mass-produced. Downside is that it will need to be
cooled to around liquid Nitrogen temperatures to work, but the output power will be
pretty high because it can switch at high frequencies.
Thus there's already a
second way to produce energy from *nothing* by breaking the relevant symmetry.
When it comes to the Bert Harju motor, as far as I can see there's no symmetries being
broken. There's also an error in the logic or wording here, saying it produces twice
the power when what's actually happening is that the speed is halved while the torque
is doubled, meaning that the power produced is the same. It's not free energy, just
getting more torque from the motor.
Best regards, Simon
Expenses April 2014: 48 Ferrite Rods 100*10mm including shipping and
handling: 103 US Dollar.
Expenses May 2014: 3 Ferrite Rods 100*10mm, 1 Ferrite Rod 160*10mm,
2 Ferrite Rods 180*10mm, 1 Ferrite Rod 195*10mm including shipping and handling: 30 US
Dollar.
Expenses June 2014: 96 small low frequency transformers
including shipping and handling: 62 US Dollar.
Expenses July 2014: 36 high frequency transformers
including shipping and handling: 54 US Dollar.
Expenses September 2014: 5 rechargeable batteries 6 volts/225maH,
15 10000uf/35 volts capitors including shipping and handling: 40 US Dollar.
Expenses June 2015: 10 5 volts mini relays, 10 12 volts mini relays
including shipping and handling: 15 US Dollar.
Hermes Free Energy Transformers
Hermes RLC-amplifier
Hubbard Coil
Coutier Transformatorn
Buck Converters
Clemente Figuera, et al. Infinite Energy Machine
Updated 2023-May-08
Hermes Inverse Clemente Figuera Generator
Conversation of Permanent Magnet Energy to Electric Energy
The Adams Active Thermo Electric High Voltage Pulsed DC Permanent Magnet Switched Reluctance Electric Motor
Robert Adams Pulsed Electric Motor Generator: Theory & Tips
Bob Teal Magnipulsion
USP 4,093,880 Magnetically Operable Engine by Benjiman R. Teal
USP 3,992,132 Energy Conversation System by J. William Putt
USP 190,206 Electro Magnetic Motor by Wesley W. Gary
will be opensourced or patented if we can improve on existing schematics and make them
true clean energy technologies.
Check out my Hermes Free Energy Links
for updates of this page:
Support the future - Support the clean energy researchers
back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook