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
Advanced Magnetics Beats Lenz’s Law
4 thoughts on “Advanced Magnetics Beats Lenz’s Law”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the link you sent about Dayton Miller.
About the ether drift studied so profound by this Dayton Miller, which demonstrated that light velocity is not constant, this should be embraced by the scientific community to be a very interesting case, showing Einstein’s relativity theory is missing something. But we should not throw relativity out of the window just like that, It is of much value, but simply not complete. This is how the science should react: complete the missing pieces of the big puzzle our immense universe is and of which realtivity theory only describes a part. The problem seems to be that the scientific community needed something to hold on in very unstable times, and Einstein simply provided that straw of simplicity.
It seems to me, while reading the interesting article, as if Miller was a similar subject to specific suppression just like what happened to Tesla.
On one side (Miller), a simpler Einstein theory was easier to accept and understand, and on the other hand (Tesla) free and unlimited energy versus energy management that ment commercial business and thus lots of money and thus power, and both have corrupted the scientific community like a cancer disrupts body functions.
It is sad to see this has happened (and still is happening) and hold back important advance for so long, but even so I remain positive about the possibility human kind will be able to wake up and advance to the next logical step in for example energy manegement, as it is clearer to see every day that the way we manage energy today is becoming the well known tool that is digging our very own grave.
Same goes for food and equality in this world but that is a whole another story. We as humans still have so much to learn!
I have been following Jim, Paul, Peter and as many as I find time to, and building a database of information. Here is a introductory web site I put together to help those interested find good information: http://ufsolution.wix.com/unifiedfieldsolution . I have been correlating new theory with these discoveries as they develop. I have not studied Eric Dollard’s work systematically yet (did read some and heard a few of his lectures), but have been delving into Russell’s and Keely’s work – primarily at Dale Pond’s “Rossetta Stone” at svpsvril.com . The perspective I see emerging is that “laws” such as Lenz are simply working relationships for a certain range of conditions (as Paul says, for a certain circuit configuration). Take the ‘laws’ of thermodynamics; they apparently actually only hold up in a “equilibrium” condition, as opposed to “non-equilibrium” – see Ilya Prigogine’s “Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics” theory. What we have now are a collection of post-civil war era working concepts and associated mathematics to build what could be quickly commercialized. Other phenomena or components of EM are ignored or treated as “losses” or trivialized; kind of like cutting the tip off of an elephant tusk, with careful precise measurements, and not seeing the elephant! From what I gather (and I have built a few rather small devices/kits), what some of these circuits are doing is not explained with EM or other known “ambient” energy, so the “over unity” or zero point description may better describe the source. The “over unity” appearance then would be due to not currently being able to quantify or represent the zero point or ether as the source – or precisely how it is converted to usable energy. It is true that for most that are trained in classical electromagnetic theory, they would not be open to such concepts. So, what is emerging is new theory that properly identifies primal elements that are deeper than those currently described as such (gravity, strong force, week force, EM). For instance, Walter Russell’s description of gravity, “pressure gradients” or matter, “winding/unwinding” electrical “rhythmic balanced interchange”. Or, John Keely’s triune scaled model of the atomic/subatomic/subsub…etc. particles, and flow of vibrational energy. There are a lot of dots to connect, as anyone sees when they get very deep into some of this. It will certainly be a new world when the understanding of working principles implemented for energy and other purposes is supported by (more or less) complete theory. The more cross-communication going on the better in order to develop the full picture.