Tag Archives: overunity

Open System Thermodynamics by Peter Lindemann

Get the whole presentation here: http://opensystemthermodynamics.com

Since 1977, the entire field of thermodynamics was upgraded with Ilya Prigogine’s Nobel Prize winning work to include Open System Thermodynamics. In a nutshell, it means that any system that is open with the environment can output more work than the operator has to supply.

Take note that contrary to the conventionally trained academic who is always quick to point out that there can’t be more output than input is making a false argument because that is not what is actually claimed by the inventors of legitimate free energy technologies.

More output than what the operator has to supply is not the same thing as claiming more output than was is going into the system. Obviously, this means there is other input from elsewhere that is not provided by the operator of the system.

It is often said that Prigogine’s work extended thermodynamics to include open systems, but the reality is that it did not extend thermodynamics, it corrected it. The reason for this is very simple – there is no such thing as a closed system and every single system is open.

The deeper reality is that every system is open – some are designed to make use of external input that is separate from the operator’s input and some are designed to only use the operator’s input.

If you have a flashlight and the battery has 10 units of potential energy to light the bulb, when the flashlight is on, minus losses, there will only be 10 units of light or less depending on efficiency. Efficiency is the ratio if TOTAL input vs INTENDED output. This is what is meant by a closed system because it does not utilize free environmental input such as gravity, heat, light, wind, water, etc…

If you take this flashlight and stick it deep into a snow bank that is freezing, the battery will interact with this cold environmental temperature and it will not power the light as long. That is because it is not a closed system after all and easily interacts with the environment outside of itself. If it was a closed system, the battery would continue to power the light irrespective of the environmental temperature that the flashlight is operating in.

Let’s look at an example of a child flying a kite. If the child inputs 10 units of energy and the wind inputs 90 parts energy for a certain period of time, that is 100 parts of energy total input. If 70% of all that input is lost in bad kite design, wind friction on the kite, etc… that means that only 30 units of energy were actual kite flying work accomplished. 100 parts of energy were input and 30 units of INTENDED work were done – that equals 30% efficiency.

That means 30 units of intended work were accomplished but the child only had to input 10 units of work. That is a 300% net GAIN in energy compared to what the operator had to pay for. The ratio of OPERATOR input compared to INTENDED work done is COP or Coefficient of Performance. In this case, the COP is 3.0. COP does not include free environmental input and this is how every heat pump is rated for example.

The kite flying example is a perfectly legitimate free energy system where the operator of the system got way more out of the system than what he had to put in. Again, notice that this is NOT more output than input, but more output than the operator had to contribute – meaning there is indeed extra free environmental input from somewhere.

Watch this excerpt from Peter Lindemann’s Open System Thermodynamics presentation for deeper elaboration on this concept. The next time a skeptic tells you that there can’t be more output than input and that anything like that would violate the laws of thermodynamics, please point them to this post and video because the fact is that they are making an illegitimate argument about something that was never claimed by those who have real free energy technologies.

Please help spread this truth by using the share buttons below!


Bob Teal – Magnipulsion, his Grandson comments

For a number of years, I’ve been in contact with Bob Teal’s grandson. Bob Teal invented the Magnipulsion Engine, which was the inspiration for my Scotch Yoke motor: http://emediapress.com/aaronmurakami/scotchyoke/

Here are his latest comments:

“Aaron, thanks for sending this, it was great to learn more about what my Grandfather was doing. As I mentioned when we spoke many years ago, I remember mowing the lawn with a mower with his engine on it. It must have been in 1979-80 as he showed me his new patents (which you have shown here) and was trying to describe how it was better than his first engine. The ONE thing I remember from our talks was that he said his patents were almost complete, but not enough for anyone to ever replicate it and I believe he even said he put a couple of things in there to throw people off so they couldn’t make it. But it is sad he was so un-trusting and would actually help build on his project with others. I wish I had the money at the time after he passed away, to have someone get the engine and send it to me in California. I would have no problem of sharing that with you as I would just like to see something come of it. So I am VERY excited to see if you can make something similar happen. I wish you all the luck and please keep me updated as to how you progress.

A little more info for you, when he was in the Coast Guard, he was an electronics genius and would work on various projects for them. He mentioned to me at one time of developing a space missile based on magnetics, that would launch missiles from a satellite. He also mentioned working on an atomic bomb and was present for various tests. One thing I actually saw, was a “gun” that shot “liquid” electricity (the way he explained it to me). I remember his shooting this “gun” at his fence in the backyard of his home in St Cloud, and the fence sparked when the “liquid electricity” hit it. He also gave me a box he developed that I could plug a light into it and I could physically hold the light under water with bare wires exposed, and have the box plugged into the wall. I was supposed to use it for my science fair at school, but my teachers wouldn’t let me use it. Another thing he developed was the “Electreat” which was a box he made for several of his friends which had a pair of “tongs” with metal pieces at the end that you would clamp around your finger with arthritis and it would help reduce the inflammation and pain associated with arthritis. As you can see he was very busy working on various projects all of the time, and yes, one of his loves was science fiction writing. I may still have one of his stories in storage somewhere, along with a book of poems he wrote! Heh!

Thanks again!”
For more information on Bob Teal’s technology go here: http://free-energy.ws/bob-teal/

New Joseph Newman Disclosure Coming

Yesterday, I talked with a gentleman who is an insider into the world of Joseph Newman and he will be disclosing some of Newman’s secrets at our conference next year. I was introduced to him last year but did not realize how close he was to Newman.

According to him, what most people think they know about Joseph Newman’s technology is only 30% correct with 70% of the information still not disclosed.

At the 2017 Energy Science & Technology Conference, he will present a Newman motor running along with a disclosure of information he hasn’t publicly revealed before. He was one of Joseph Newman’s closest confidants who worked with him closely for 10 years.

New disclosures are always welcome and I was pleasantly surprised that there is more to the Newman machine that I thought.

Some of Joseph Newman’s work has been inspirational to John Bedini, Paul Babcock and others so that alone shows you the value in paying attention to this important work.

More details on this presentation and speaker will be posted on the conference website soon. 69% of the seats are already registered with only 47 left (not updated on website, but these are the latest numbrs) and we’re not even at the end of the year so we’ll probably break last year’s record easily. Get registered now – no payment is necessary at this time. http://energyscienceconference.com

Paul Babcock 9/12/2016 Live Call Recording

Here’s the recording of Paul Babcock’s live call from September 12th, 2016. There are some pictures in the video from the 2016 Energy Science & Technology Conference.

We hope you enjoy this and share it with your friends with the buttons below!

NEW RELEASE – Magnetic Implosion Transformer by Graham Gunderson

Magnetic Implosion Transformer by Graham Gunderson
Magnetic Implosion Transformer by Graham Gunderson

Magnetic Implosion Transformer by Graham Gunderson –This presentation shows a solid state transformer invented by Graham that measured out at 570% more output than the input he had to pay for at a live demonstration. He can even dial the input down so the input goes negative, which means the COP (coefficient of performance) is infinite (ratio between intended work compared to input we paid for. These measurements were validated by multiple methods that all corroborated with each other. Release date – August 3, 2016. Learn more: Magnetic Implosion Transformer

July 2016 – A & P Electronic Media Newspaper

Download this FREE newspaper by A & P Electronic Media.

There are some articles, sample catalog, conference schedule and a link to a new Connected TV station, Tesla Media Network, that we launched months ago.

Download now: 2016 Energy Conference

Paul Babcock’s Motor Video Released

Here is a short video demonstrating Paul Babcock’s motor that runs with no Back EMF. That means the rotor and stator do not see each other so they do not cause magnetic drag on each other. It can only motor as there is no generator action like most motors that operate with Back EMF.

It is very important to read the slide at 7 seconds into the video because that is a highly profound and astounding statement that is 100% true and essentially is one of many nails in the coffin of conventional electromagnetics. What is proves is that magnets are a source of energy, period.

Magnetic Energy Secrets by Paul Babcock
Magnetic Energy Secrets by Paul Babcock

It is brief but enough to show that it does indeed run, since Paul recently repaired parts of the circuitry and power supply. It is also very important to understand that he has already shared the basic operating principles and theories in Magnetic Energy Secrets Parts 1, 2 & 3 here: http://magneticenergysecrets.com



Graham Gunderson Overunity Disclosure
Graham Gunderson Overunity Disclosure

At the 2015 Energy Science & Technology Conference, Graham Gunderson gave a presentation one of the simplest experiments anyone can do that demonstrates “overunity”. In other words, there is more measurable output than the operator has to input.

The video presentation has been available but last night, Graham was kind enough to allow us to video a whiteboard presentation with him giving in-depth details on exactly how this experiment was put together. This includes schematics, precise specs on the transformer and other details necessary for anyone to replicate this experiment.

If you already have the “Overunity Disclosure” presentation by Graham, then just visit the same download page and there is an extra video there called the Schematic Video. Download that for details – it is 36 minutes long and is a presentation on its own.

If you have not gotten a copy of Graham’s Overunity Disclosure presentation from the last conference, get a discounted copy here: http://grahamgunderson.com/ou

Electrical charge is more than the electrons

It is known by those who are skilled in the art of some overunity electrical devices that there is more going on with the electrical current than the typical electron flow theory can account for.

For years, John Bedini has said that current meters that measure electron current only measure what is wasted. Eric Dollard has said that energy is the rate that electricity is being destroyed, which is the same thing since that current multiplied by voltage over time is energy, the destruction of organized potential, and that is what the meters are measuring.

In Jim Murray’s SERPS device, which has demonstrated almost 50 times more work being done than the net draw from the power supply, Jim has said that there is extra energy in the current. However, most conventionally trained engineers simply cannot comprehend how this can be.

For example, if we have an incandescent light bulb in an electrical circuit and we supply electricity to this load, the bulb will light up. However, a common idea is that the bulb is “burning up” all the electricity that passes through it, but nothing could be further from the truth.

In the SERPS for example, electricity is passed through a resistive load and then a capacitor is charged on the other side of the load. Then, at the right time, the capacitor is discharged backwards through the load back to the source (generator) turning it into a motor for that moment. So, if the generator is only a generator for 1/2 the time and is a motor 1/2 the time, the motor or prime mover moving the generator to begin with sees virtually no net load.

That demonstration alone is proof that there are some other properties to electrical current than what can be accounted for by simple electron current theory alone. There is something extra and the so-called electron current, which is measurable by common current meters cannot explain or account for it all – just as Bedini and Dollard has hinted.

A couple years ago, a very important announcement was made during research into “cuprate superconductors”, which contain copper, which revealed that, “electrons are not enough to carry the current. ” Discussion on this “violation” appears to go back to the 1990’s when searching online references.

Although these discussions focus on a very specific sets of conditions required to elicit such violations of common electron current theory, the implications are staggering when reading between the lines.

Whether superconductors are used or not, the fact is that there is more current being carried than can be accounted for by the electrons. So, what else is carrying the current? And does this actually give more credibility to some overunity claims where the end results are more than what can be accounted by measuring the output electrically?

For example, in the Bedini SG, if one were to measure the electrical output of a the machine, it is always less than what actually winds up in the battery. Stating it another way, there is more that winds up in the battery than can be measured leaving the circuit charging it. There are some interesting things that are happening in the battery, which allow the battery to start receiving free source potential from it’s environment, which doesn’t come from the electrical circuit – it’s related but not directly proportional.

Now, this understanding that shows that there is more to the current than the electrons can account for suggest other means for transferring potential to the battery, which probably can’t be measured by the meters. It is understood that there absolutely is more that winds up in the battery than can be measured leaving the circuit, which is indisputable and anything like this that  can contribute to a clearer understanding of these kinds of observations is more than welcome.

In the article from a few years ago, Electrons are not enough: Cuprate superconductors defy convention, The below diagram shows that there is more electrical charge than can be accounted for by electrons alone.

Luttinger’s theorem states that the number of electrons in a material is the same as the number of electrons in all of its atoms added together.

The researchers developed a model outlining the breakdown of Luttinger’s theorem that is applicable to cuprate superconductors, since the hypotheses that the theorem is built on are violated at certain energies in these materials. The group tested it and indeed found discrepancies between the measured charge and the number of mobile electrons in cuprate superconductors, defying Luttinger.

Something other than electrons carries the current.

Electrons are charged. Therefore, if an electron does not contribute to the charge count, then there is a lot of explaining to do.

They even state, “Now the researchers are exploring possible candidates for current-carriers, particularly a novel kind of excitation called unparticles.

Although the defiance of Luttinger’s Theorem is is not at astronomical proportions in this example, a deviation from the predicted amount is still a deviation. Something either follows the “rules” or it doesn’t.

The admission that there might be something other that carries the current is actually quite bold and could potentially rattle the cages of the classical electron flow theory. This isn’t a surprise for those involved in research into overunity systems, but it is a surprise to see conventional references admitting such a thing.

Here is the full article: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-electrons-cuprate-superconductors-defy-convention.html

And here is the original paper: http://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.090403

Advanced Magnetics Beats Lenz’s Law

Paul Babcock goes over details on his over 1.0 COP motor that beats Lenz’s Law. Paul will go into greater detail on these principles at the upcoming 2015 Energy Science & Technology Conference.

Learn more here: http://energyscienceconference.com