The Methernitha group in Switzerland have, I understand, created
the Testatika which seems to fit the bill, but they have decided as a
group to intentionally not release the technology for public use
on the grounds that they feel mankind would not use the technology
responsibly.... I can't claim to know enough about the device
to say that it would produce the exact power output you've described
but my understanding (which could be completely wrong) is that it does
provide the mechanism to produce sufficient power output so as to be
useful.... I have not yet run accross any substantial negative
critiques of their design...but that doesn't mean someone somewhere
hasn't found flaws in it...
dwenbert wrote:
>
> LETS FIND THE PROBLEM -- IT WILL LEAD TO THE SOLUTION.
>
> Could everyone please take a minute to post your best reason(s) as to why
> NO zero-point/over-unity/free energy device has EVER made it out of the
> lab, been put into production, and brought to market?
>
> History is replete with dozens of researchers stumbling onto what seems to
> be essentially the same phenomenon, from Tesla to Newman. Despite the
> fact that this technique is reproducible and even allowable under quantum
> mechanics, no one has seemed competent to put it to use to generate
> electric power. I'd like to know your opinions as to "Why?".
>
> While government conspiracies may well exist, the government can't deliver
> mail reliably, make Amtrak run on time, keep Plutonium away from Saddam
> Hussain, stop Cocaine at the borders, or do anything else well, thoroughly,
> and efficiently. I find it hard to believe that it can keep free energy
> suppressed for a century in the face of the economic incentive we (and
> everyone else) have to develop it. Something else is in the way and I'd
> like to know what the bugaboo is, for real.
>
> My Best Guesses:
>
> 1. Is the effect not scalable to useful power levels because the local
> energy density of the vacuum (aether, quantum particle flux, etc.) is much
> lower than Feynmann predicted? If the free energy available per unit
> volume of space is too meager, the rotating machinery approach will not
> work for commercial scale systems. Its like photovoltaics; at a net
> insolation power level of 250 watts/meter2, you will always need large
> solar panels to do anything useful, no matter how good the cells get.
>
> 2. Can nobody find an efficient way to convert the high frequency, high
> voltage Alternating Current output obtained from all of these systems to
> the simple 60 Hz, 120 Vac required by all of our appliances? Newman, and
> the Correas, and RQM have all faced this particular problem, and had to
> stop to go invent a power converter/conditioner to make their device output
> useable; yet none have gotten past it yet. If the downconversion losses
> are too great, free energy systems will not be practical, even if the
> effect is real.
>
> 3. Do the machines simply stop working as the permanent magnets run down
> and slowly become demagnetized from the conteropposing torquing forces of
> the opposite fields? Since you can magnetize a piece of iron by rotating
> it past an electromagnetic coil via induction, there is no reason to think
> they wouldn't become demagnetized in the same manner, when confronted with
> opposite field polarity. This explains why all these devices start
> working and then dry up and blow away after a short period of amazement;
> perhaps magnets are just like batteries that wear down and run out.
>
> 4. Are there toxic bioenergetic effects that the developers come to
> realize only after some period of extended operation, which would make any
> such technology unsuitable for widespread use? Does exporsure sicken
> people after a while, in some form of [EM] 'radiation poisoning'? The
> abnormally high mortality rate among free energy researchers provides
> impressive circumstancial statistical evidence for this.
>
> 5. Does the continuous extraction of energy from the vacuum/quantum
> spacetime/aether have unforeseen environmental consequences at the
> subdimensional level, for instance, allowing spiritual/psychic forces to
> more easily ('too' easily) interpenetrate into physical reality from
> 'beyond'?
> A home energy machine that brings with it its own haunting of the house
> into which it is installed would find it hard to maintain widespread public
> enthusiasm.
>
> Now, I'd like to hear all of yours....
>
> David L. Wenbert
> dwenbert@spacey.net