Can I upload physics paper related to free energy technologies here?

[Hughe]

I like to know how far this forum takes the pressure of Free Energy technologies. Please let me know. I understand FE technologies is very sensitive issue.

I've been studying one specific FE theory and device for few years. It will depends on the forum's admin's decision. My approach about FE technologies is practical. It must have scientific principals that explain how and why, can make estimate the prototype's behavior and input/output before actual building.

I've collected and studied physics papers and materials that explain one type of FE devices, in general it's called 'Gravity motor.' The theory is called 'Inertia Impulse' made by a Russian scientist Kanarev FM.

Gravity Motor has five hundreds old illusive device, first created by Leonardo Da Vinci. Its first working model built by a German inventor Johann Bessler in 1712. You can check the machine here. http://www.besslerwheel.com/

There are supposedly ten to twelve working gravity motors reported. As you know, real FE device means the inventor has to deal with life and death unless one make a deal with TPTB. What I mean is a real FE device that can be scaled up, mass produced for mobile power generator between 500W to above.

All the working gravity motors have two components. I name them: trigger (pulse), gravity wheel. Trigger supplies force to the rotating gravity wheel. It regulates the speed of gravity wheel. The fast it turns, the rotational force - kinetic energy - will increase, then when it goes over the magic point, its kinetic energy follows the linear equation. Basically, the mass of gravity wheel, shape, speed of rotation, and kinetic frictional torque dictates the COP ratio. To have COP ration between 5 to 10 can be done easily.

The trigger, i.e electric motor that turns gravity wheel, consumes 1 unit of energy, the gravity wheel generates 7 or 12 unit of kinetic energy. The torque of the wheel converts the kinetic energy to produce electricity.

Kanarev FM found the big flaw in Newton's three laws of motion, and revised laws of motion explains the property of inertia in depth, which directly related to mass of objects, as the result any machines that uses the Inertia impulse theoretically are OU machines. xD

I finish post here for now. Let's see how it goes.

Similar Threads:

• Free Energy Generator ?!?
• Free energy from gravity
• Free Energy Technology
• Free Energy Home Generator Zero Point Energy Off the Grid
• Ancient Advanced Technologies - Technologies of The Gods

[flower]

Hughe

All new members are restricted in their first 5 posts from posting links (an added feature to keep spammers out)

But this team is very prompt and approuved your previous thread very quickly...as i have done here.

I hope this answers your questions..and welcome

[Richard]

Hi Hughe, Welcome.

You can attach the paper/document to your post by selecting the paperclip icon in the editor.

You can upload up to 20MB in that manner, if the file is bigger it would need to be added manually through FTP.

Hope that helps

[robert]

I like to know how far this forum takes the pressure of Free Energy technologies. Please let me know. I understand FE technologies is very sensitive issue.

Hi Hughe

we do have a category for it:

http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/forum...p-Anti-Gravity

have fun, eager to read you

- Robert

[Nexus Moderator]

we do have a category for it:

http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/forum...p-Anti-Gravity

This thread has been moved to that subforum

[noxon]

..
-

- Huge Welcome



Have to happen , so .....
- Bring it on ..

You should have the ear of both
skeptics and enthusiasts , and
everything in between , here .

- so

be well and be ware
(be you, be rare)

be free
be energy



..
-

[Hughe]

Thanks alot guys.

I'll upload materials and continue to post articles.
There is no fixed schedule and I have time limitation but as my research progresses, I'll put real data here to share this technology. Below is the list of content I'll write.
I'll revised the content at least grammar parts by myself before uploading.

1. Inertia impulse theory
I'll attach original documents of this theory's paper and articles.
New laws of motion - grade 12 level maths and physics

2. Introduction of gravity motors that run under IIT.
Basic laws that are used
Components

3. Computer analysis for prototype models.
This part will contain Python codes, data, graphs, and animation if possible.
I think it will takes time and readers who already knows the basic stuff will understand: computer programming in general, maths.
At this part, the goal is to make a reliable set of formulas which provides
basic parameters to build actual machine: the dimensions of components,
speed of rotation, input power, output power, etc.

4. Schematic diagram of prototypes.
Tools, material list.
Building instruction

5. Operation analysis of the prototype.
Photos, test data.
My goal is to have real FE power generator that I can use everyday.
Also others can build it without tinkering nor guessing.

@noxon,

I know the laws of physics, mathematics don't lie unless I blindly follow the flawed laws, stuck in a system. I believe in Free Energy is real.

[Hughe]

1. Inertia impulse theory

Introduction to Mechanodynamecs by Ph. M. Kanarev
IntroductionMechanodynamics.pdf

Energy Impusle Secrets by Ph. M. Kanarev
EneryImpulseSecrets_Kanarev.doc

[lightblue]

1. Inertia impulse theory

Introduction to Mechanodynamecs by Ph. M. Kanarev
IntroductionMechanodynamics.pdf

Energy Impusle Secrets by Ph. M. Kanarev
EneryImpulseSecrets_Kanarev.doc

nice...but i don't think anyone here will understand the maths of it ... once we cracked the principles and practical applications of FE devices that willl be it..they'd be no more complex strategies needed into how to break free from the clutches of the ptb...can't wait..

having said that and if you think you are close to cracking it, please look after yourself... l


.

.

[omer]

nice...but i don't think anyone here will understand the maths of it

I did a quick scan of the PDF and DOC files and the maths presented weren't anything out of the ordinary. I see no reason to reach your conclusion. The math used is mostly summations, basic vector analysis and a little bit of simple integration. Pretty much High School math as far as I can see.

As for the physics, I can't tell you yet for I haven't yet read it (just a quick scan). Will report back once I do.

[lightblue]

I did a quick scan of the PDF and DOC files and the maths presented weren't anything out of the ordinary. I see no reason to reach your conclusion. The math used is mostly summations, basic vector analysis and a little bit of simple integration. Pretty much High School math as far as I can see.

As for the physics, I can't tell you yet for I haven't yet read it (just a quick scan). Will report back once I do.

please do report back..i can hardly ever make any sense of figures - i did/do visual arts....sorry....i am just hoping there are more maths diletantes and that i am not the only one, so yes, please report back....thanks.. l

.

[omer]

His main Idea is interesting, and one that my friends and I asked ourselves about a few years ago but couldn't figure out how to solve. He is trying to include the inertial force that we feel when we are in an accelerating system (e.g. being pressed to the seat when the car accelerates) which physics pretty much ignores and calls it 'imaginary force'.

I'm having trouble understanding his reasoning, though. I think it's because English is neither my nor his mother tongue.

Therefore, it might take me longer than I (and maybe you) expected to understand this material.

Just a heads up if anyone's interested.

P.S. Is there a certain reading order or it doesn't matter what I read first?

[omer]

OK, I went through the PDF twice. I think I get the main idea but I don't yet understand how the proposed new theory explains reality.

Let me expand this.

Newton's Laws work only in inertial systems, i.e. systems that are not undergoing acceleration; For example, when you throw a ball you exert force on it, and it is accelerated. But the system (the room) is not and stays stationary. That's why Newton's First Law was stated first, otherwise it logically should've come third.

As an aside: The momentum of a body is (to put it in simple terms) it's resistance for any change in it's velocity (speed and direction). Thus, to change the course of a body with a lot of momentum (or to give a lot of momentum to a stationary body) takes a lot of force. And this is where forces come into the picture. A force is the mechanism through which we take and give momentum to an object. The change in momentum equals the amount of force exerted over a time period.

Now, back to the issue at hand. Newton's First Law states that a body will continue moving in the same velocity (speed and direction) as long as no force is acting upon it or all the forces acting upon it negate each other. The object continues it's movement (or standing still) because of it's own momentum.

Now, if we are in a decelerating car, we feel a force pushing us forward. This force is not explained by Newton's Laws because we are inside a non-inertial system (decelerating car). We can solve the problem in two ways: We can say that there is an 'imaginary' (also called 'inertial') force that acts on the body, that it's acceleration is equal and opposite to the deceleration of the car (the system). Thus, negating the deceleration of the car by 'imagining' the acceleration of the body. The second way to solve this is to say, that if we look at the situation from an external inertial system (e.g the street) we can see that the force causing the deceleration of the car acts only on the car and not on us, so because we don't feel that force and have to maintain our momentum we think we get thrown forward, but it is actually the car that is being slowed down while we keep on.

This is how science deals with the problem of inertial (imaginary) forces.

What Kanarev, through Hughe, is proposing is that Newton's Laws are not complete. He proposes that, in any system (inertial too), an inertial force appears opposite to any change of velocity (acceleration or deceleration) and also, it appears in the direction of movement when a body is moving in uniform speed. Essentially, he says the inertial force appears whenever the body is moving.

It wasn't easy for me to extract that from the text. The text is ordered on the order of his new laws of Mechanodynamics and not in an order that is easy to understand (it starts with the complex problems first).

So, now to what I don't understand. Kanarev still defines 'Force' the same as Newton did. So my question here is: How come the inertial force that appears when a body is moving in uniform speed doesn't cause it to accelerate if it is the only force acting on the body, and the definition of 'force' didn't change.

Maybe the answer is in the DOC file. Wanted to give you a bit of insight into the matter, guys.

So look, Hughe, I'm trying to understand this. I'm not looking for ways to contradict this stuff. Could you give me a hand here?


P.S. Was the PDF 'Google translated' from Russian?

[Hughe]

@omer

Study order:
Introduction of Mechenodyamics
Energy Impulse Theory
F.M. Chakalis's mathematical proof

To go really deeper study Microworld (Chater 1 to Chapter 5).
Later parts contain revised electromagnetism which I wouldn't interest at the moment. Honestly I can't afford to spend hours to study electromagnetism.

Newton's Laws work only in inertial systems, i.e. systems that are not undergoing acceleration; For example, when you throw a ball you exert force on it, and it is accelerated. But the system (the room) is not and stays stationary. That's why Newton's First Law was stated first, otherwise it logically should've come third.

Yeap. It should be on third. Kanarev mentioned it too.

My understanding of Kanarev's new laws of motion is that the Inertia won't disappear and it carries on energy within, which gives why certain types of system produce more energy input than output. The total energy of system is can be manipulated - pulse or harmonic variation - to extract usable energy. What is inertia? It's resistance of change as you know. What is directly related to inertia? It's mass of objects. Mass is scalar quantity. It's irrelevant dimension nor size.

Let's say there is a ball of mass 100 kg - Ma and a ball of 50 kg - Mb. To move Ma takes more force than Mb. Once it starts moving, mass - inertia - carries kinetic energy even it's moving at constant velocity, where there is no external or internal acceleration. Classical mechanics agree with it.

Above configuration Ma's kinetic energy (Ka) is 0.5 x 100 kg x v^2, Kb is 0.5 x 50 kg x v^2. v is velocity. Ka has twice kinetic energy than Mb. Assuming there is small frictional loss, putting another ball into the system, Mc - 50 kg - keep the system running with extra input energy. Total kinetic energy of the system will be Ka + Kb + Kc = 2 Kb + Kb + Kb = 4 Kb. (Ka = 2 Kb, Kb = Kc).

To add another ball of mass 50kg in the system will take less amount of energy and increase the total kinetic energy of system. Because now it's one big ball and three small balls. Is it possible in reality? I think so. It's bizarre situation. Cause Newtonian mechanics always put the total system of energy is at constant or fixed. Under this paradigm, creating OU device is impossible. They think the world is solid metal box that's extremely hard to change or permanent state. It is just one framework of understanding nature. I disagree with it.

So, now to what I don't understand. Kanarev still defines 'Force' the same as Newton did. So my question here is: How come the inertial force that appears when a body is moving in uniform speed doesn't cause it to accelerate if it is the only force acting on the body, and the definition of 'force' didn't change.

Can you imagine inertia as water container? It takes x amount of water and keep it there. Inertia serves as reservoir as water (energy) without active mechanism within.

P.S. Was the PDF 'Google translated' from Russian?

I doubt it. All of his English documents on the net done by human translators as I know. He had to pay translation fee.

PS: English is my second language too.

[omer]

Cause Newtonian mechanics always put the total system of energy is at constant or fixed. Under this paradigm, creating OU device is impossible. They think the world is solid metal box that's extremely hard to change or permanent state. It is just one framework of understanding nature. I disagree with it.

As far as I understand, when people speak of Over-Unity (OU) or 'Free Energy' device they always speak of COP > 1 and not Efficiency > 1. According to the Law of Energy Conservation, Energy cannot be produced, only transformed. Hence, Efficiency cannot exceed 100% and thus Efficiency ≤ 1 always. COP (Coefficient of Performance) on the other hand, can exceed 100% because it denotes the amount of energy produced by the system divided by the amount of energy artificially introduced into the system. Energy coming in from the environment (sunlight, gravity, ambient heat) is not counted when computing COP, only something that was artificially introduced (electricity, manual labor, burning fuel). Most of the attempts at producing 'Free Energy' try to tap into energies that current science doesn't know how to use (energy from the vacuum, zero point energy) but do exist in our environment.

Working examples of Over Unity (Free Energy) devices are solar panels, wind turbines, hydro electric stations... These use the common kinds of energy that we know about.
The Over Unity devices that the Alt community are usually talking about are mostly the ones trying to tap into less commonplace energies like the ones I mentioned before.

As a side note, Tom Bearden has built a device which he claims (as far as I understand) breaks the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation). Don't quote me on that, though, it bears a second look. I'm not entirely sure of it, and I'm not out to slander Tom Bearden. Just wanted to give you a fuller picture.

Can you imagine inertia as water container? It takes x amount of water and keep it there. Inertia serves as reservoir as water (energy) without active mechanism within.

Yes, but that's what we have energy and momentum for. If the inertial force equals mass times acceleration, how come the object is not being accelerated?

[Hughe]

Yes, but that's what we have energy and momentum for. If the inertial force equals mass times acceleration, how come the object is not being accelerated?

You mean F (Force) = m (mass) x a (acceleration).

Above formula, newton's law can't deal with inertia. It just assumes mass is inertia. Well, later on classical mechanics introduces rotation of an object produces another force that affects the total energy, again using the same term "inertia".

Classical mechanics set total energy of system is constant which is their framework of interpreting world. Inertia impulse theory has different approach what I understand so far is this
"The total energy of system can be changed either increase or decrease or be at constant state."
Pendulum movement is a good example of harmonic motion. Adding a tiny energy at the peak of bob swinging, the total energy of pendulum gets bigger and bigger. The swinging soon becomes circular motion with the string becomes radius of the circle. Circular motion is closed loop system. However it's a dynamic system of energy. When it turns fast, it has big energy. When it turns slow, it has lower energy.

Let's see there are three balls - a, b, c - with different mass, 1 kg, 5 kg, 10 kg at 2 meters height over the ground. Classical mechanics says three balls fall at the same speed. We know that. The total energy of each ball is potential energy at 2 meters. It's fixed value. Potential energy formula is mass x g x height. g is constant acceleration of Earth.

Pa = 1 x g x 2
Pb = 5 x g x 2
Pc = 10 x g x 2

We see there exists three systems that have different energy level. Ball a and Earth - Sa - is the lowest. Ball c and Earth is the highest. Intriguing question is if total energy of universe is fixed, three balls speed must vary. To satisfy the conservation of energy law, Pc's falling speed gotta be slowest. But, the truth is they fall at the same speed.

The conservation of energy is only applies to a given system that all the boundary values are known. I like to point out the law of conservation is hypothesis or "it's not a real property of nature." Mainstream scientists' wishful, stupid tendency to hold on one absolute truth, which does not exist. Putting one factor in a system changes the total energy, its behavior.

I've been building a shelter and laboratory by myself. When it's done, I'll be able to build machines and do experiment to verify the inertia impulse theory. I got to do everything myself. Last two weeks I learned how to build a house, working on woods.

Hopefully I'll be able to start upload pictures of prototype machines and data for others.

[Hughe]

Kanarev reinvented new laws of motion that have five laws. He precisely found out how inertia of the matter works. Brilliant observation after 330+ years of flawed Newton's mechanics.

http://pesn.com/2010/10/13/9501712_K...tor-generator/


It is bizarre why so many people including myself do it over and over secretly?
Do people really think they can make $$$ out of any FE devices honestly?
A university professor can't publish his books with lack of money in Russia. So he has published E-books without charge for general public over seven years. There are millions of scientists and engineers who can read and verify his theory within a week. Yet the view counts of the E-books is pathetic below few hundreds. What a way of stupidity in scientific community.

Probably. That's why any FE devices haven't came out in the black market even.

I see HHO kits are being sold by few websites nowadays. 15% of 20% fuel saving is feasible for sure. Providing installation service for car owners? Hmm... I know I go to jail by doing it in this country.

I started fixing a deserted house by myself, where I live, study, and grow food. I'll have friends of wild animals soon.