On 1/21/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Berry wrote: > Well as I spent time with Bruce (and Andrew Mount and Paul Clarke) in New > Zealand not long before he died and I can tell you that he was as Paul > asserts a kind man, no negativity. > > The last N-Machine test in NZ before his death was not so positive. > I believe that the N-Machine will work as a motor (not FE) although I > believe that the first machine possibly didn't have a motor force, it was > very different with carbon brushes at 90 degrees. > > The N-Machine's magnetic field DOES rotate with the magnets, the voltage is > generated in the external circuit and not on the rotating frame. I too theorized the field rotates in N-machine, but have yet to find time to test such a theory. Do you have any proof?
You could argue that Hooper proved it with his motional electric field. But the only proof I have there is logic, obviously the magnetic field must rotate with the magnet (magnets don't even have a perfect field all around). The only reason to think that it might not rotate is the fact than an N-Machine generates a voltage, but that is erroneous because if the magnetic field rotates then a voltage is induced in the external circuit.
The funny think is that the N-Machine is very very easy to test, don't test > it as a generator, test it as a motor. Red flag #1. Why would you tell people to do that? All the tests I've studied clearly show the N-machine is over unity as a generator and the opposite as a motor.
Because if it is a bad (or non-existant) motor then it must be a good generator. Another thing would be to test the force placed on the brushes (after carefully separating the frictional forces). If the force on the brushes does not match the force placed on the dick then you have a unidirectional motion generator which is unlikely to be the case.
However this whole discussion is foolishness, you can't get free energy > from magnetic interactions. Red flag #2. I totally disagree! I am not suggesting the N-machine would get "free energy" from magnetic interactions, but may get such energy from an unknown source. Trying studying Bruce's gyro experiments.
I agree of course based on things I say later... As far as magnetic interactions, if you spend a few
years researching avalanches and what is really happening to magnetic material on the atomic scale you will learn that you can indeed extract "free energy" from ambient temperature.
Sure.
You can't get free energy with electrical arcs. > You can't get free energy with electrostatics. You place far too many limitations on yourself. :-) At room temperature electrons in all matter on average travel at a few hundreds of the speed of light. That's a lot of energy. > Bruce knew how you get free energy, he called it "the primordial field, a > sea of energy". > Free Energy is not possible with any conventional element known to modern > science, it is gained by making a device that harnesses 'The work wheel of > nature' which isn't electrical, magnetic, sound (Keely), or nuclear but can > influence how such devices work. > > If you make a device that works with both electrical and or magnetic > principles and the work wheel of nature you get results. > What we need to better understand is this work wheel of nature. > > If you look at devices it isn't hard to find one that does something > strange > besides create free energy, actually it's often harder to find one that > doesn't have weird side effects. > > If you don't recognize the working principle behind a device, it is no > wonder if you fail to get results. > > Look at Tesla's work, no one has replicated it to this day! > Why? Because to truly replicate Tesla and get the results he got, a HV > transformer connected to the mains will not cut it as the main's don't > supply this 'work wheel' of nature (it being depleted way way down the > line), but your average DC motor run backwards, or dynamo rectified will. > > The problem is that a whole branch of physics has been ignored by taking a > wrong turn thanks to Einstein (despite the fact that he later said that > there IS an aether and thinking otherwise is foolish) I agree! Their conception of such Aether may have been vague and inaccurate, but it seems overwhelming that such a sea of energy exists.
I have spect the last 10 years studying devices to get ever closer to see what if they do so much so different are they all doing which is the same. The answers I have found have answered not only FE and AG devices, but other unrelated natural phenomena and totally different subjects, as soon as a new piece falls into place suddenly a whole bunch of things start to make sense.
, that's why conventional science seems right most of the time and the math holds out, > all our technology is based on one specific set of ideas and principles, we > have that part correct and indeed there is NO Free Energy or Antigravity > there, not even detectable by super sensitive instruments. (generally) I'm not sure what are saying there. The universe is steaming with energy. It's surrounds you at all times. Such energy is free for those intelligent enough to extract it.
Yes, all I'm saying is that normal ways of doing things just don't tap it. I'm trying to agree with the claims that magnetic devices can't generate FE while explaining what can when working with a magnetic device. Any
voltage meter can measure thermal electrical noise caused by resistance. Get a 1 Meg resistor and use a scope to view the voltage. It's real.
No doubt, but that's small stuff. Connect an extremely high
resistance resistor across a high-speed LED and by means of ultra high-speed photon sensors you can detect periodic photon wave train packets. The light emitted by such LED's comes from the thermal energy caused by resistance.
Yes, naturally there are small and I mean small amounts of energy that can be tapped by conventional means, but this stuff isn't even flea powered. Now maybe you could get a trillion diodes and get usable energy but that's not the road I want to go down, plus I'm not interested in extracting energy from heat no matter how easily it can be done.
If you wish to blindly drive ahead you are welcome, but what I'm saying can > be solidly proven beyond any doubt. Red flag #3. I can only go on facts. I welcome your proof when you wish to post it.
Ok, let's start this simply, I'll send another post with a few questions in it.
