Posted on

# 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.

## 4 thoughts on “Advanced Magnetics Beats Lenz’s Law”

1. Awesome talk again, you really know what you are talking about Paul, and the best thing you make it simple, and you and your team made it a reality. I just hope these type of machines will become mainstream, something widely accepted, something that people can use freely to improve on and share. Because patents are just a way to not doing things right. The patent system is a farce, it is used to be able to control people around the world,especially in the US. Another thing I do not like is you use the word overunity. It does not exist. We should be talking open systems and COP. A refrigerator has a COP greater than one but it is not overunity, to name just oneexample. You and so many other inventors are bypassing the Lenz law,so that means the input power can be less, because you have less losses. But in no way there is overunity, even if COP > 1. It is an open system and in open systems energy from an external source can simply flow into the circuit, be it earth, be it an antenna,be it a coil, it doesn’t matter. For mankind’s sake let’s drop the overunity, it only upsets scientists and we do not want them upset, no we want them to adopt the new insights. We want the school books to be teaching the trtuth. We want the Einstein theories to be completed with the missing part so we can move forward and bring our planet back home.

1. Pieter, overunity is a bad word to describe “free energy” but what it means is that the output work is greater than the input work we have to pay for (not including free environmental input such as heat in heat systems). So anything that is COP over 1.0 is overunity – that is the meaning. It is of course different than efficiency, which is total output compared to total input (what we pay for plus environmental input). All these overunity machines are over 1.0 COP but the efficiency will be 100% or less since there are losses.

Are you saying to drop “overunity” to satisfy or make it easier to have scientists in the conventional world accept what is happening – or are you saying to drop overunity because it doesn’t exist? This is a people’s movement from ground up – a true grassroots movement and quite honestly, in that case, we don’t care what conventionally trained scientists want to believe.

The best thing to do with Einstein’s theories are to toss them out the window. This is one of the best compilation of references for this: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm in addition to some of Eric’s presentations. Special Relativity effects happen BECAUSE of the aether – Einstein’s perspective is inside out and backwards – an inverse view of reality that has thrown people off for too long.

2. I think it is a bad word.
Well at least inappropiate if bad isn’t to be used.
I think it is best to use the concept of an open system.

In such a system, there can be 1 or more inputs, and 1 or more outputs.
We talk about having an input and an output to measure COP and efficiency, but in reality it is a multi input and output system, in other words an open multi input output system.

By example, while observing a phenomenon like the motor of Paul Babcock and many other’s inventions, one does realize that apart from having a very defined input, energy is being lost on the way through friction and heat, which would be several outputs, then there is the environmental energy coming in from outside the input output flow because of heat and electrical and magnetic interference, and finally we have the measured output being torque or horsepower.

All inventor’s systems are open systems. They boil down to an interaction of multi input and output energy forms like electricity, magnetism, heat, gravitation, etc.
Humans take the measurable ones as an input and another as an output, then define concepts like COP, which is useful of course, and also concepts like overunity, which does simply not come to the case in the system’s overall equation.

Of course this is only my point of view, but I would encourage inventors to keep on pushing their important work to new levels using this concept of an open system.