Ken Carrigan writes:
<<Potential energy is rated in Joules which, is energy but
can not do work. Example of this is what you have stated
below. Static charge is energy not Work. Permanent Magnetic
fields (B-Fields) contain energy when integrated over a surface
area, but work involves the 'time' dimension. Joules/sec
gives rise to work. Static fields by definition do not
contain this 'time' field and as such can not do 'work'.
They do, however, contain energy and the uses you gave
depicts this. Kinetic energy is similar to potential
energy in that it is not work but has a time component.
Rotational velocity or 1/2 m v^2 is an example. This is
the motion you maybe referring to.. but again it is not
work but kinetic energy. Any energy source maybe depleted
by work which involves the 'time' dimension again.
What I would like to know is how this 'energy' can be
tapped to do work (in time) with the energy source
unlimited. Seems a permanent magnetic field has an
infinite energy pool, but again it is static potential
energy. To tap the energy of this field we must
involve time, and therefore it becomes dynamic.. which
then can provide work when we tap it off. However,
in making this FREE B-Field dynamic, we have to provide
work in order to capture work. This is where WORK (as
in theory or experiments) needs to be concentrated.. to
make the Free B-field dynamic with least amount of work
and tape the field to produce more work that it took to
be able to tap it. This has not been done so far to
my knowledge, and not sure it can be done.. in theory
or experiment. John Bedini's work I thought was doing
this until the recent posts about the battery being the
actual 'overunity' apparatus instead of the permanent
free magnetic field.
Any comments on how to accomplish this?
>>
I personally do not feel compelled, or bound to follow the "accepted"
definitions of "static" or "potential" fields - as the accepted definition
forbids any work being done as a result of these fields. I chose to suspect
that, as Bearden, and others have postulated, that we have missed
something(s) in our accepted "laws" - with respect to the concept of
"potential".
And I believe that my rudimentary understanding of an important key or core
concept of Bearden's writings on this - is that by our deliberate ignoring of
the role of potential, we have precluded a "free energy" harnessing, which
may be an inherent quality which was predicted by Maxwell, and others.
For example: given - a static field (potential) means non moving or
stationary. If you set up a static field by placing conductive plates in a
fluid, or gas, and charging those plates by applying a net positive, and
negative charge to the respective plates - any charged body (ion, or molecule
with a non zero charge) between these plates will be induced to move towards
the plate of opposite polarity.
This movement does not require any current flow, nor any movement of the
field. A current flow will be the RESULT of this movement, but the pure
static or potential field caused the ions to move FIRST. Current followed
this movement, or is a measure of this movement.
NEXT EXAMPLE: take two identical permanent magnets. Place one on a surface,
and push it by hand from point A to point B. You can calculate the work done
to move this magnet from the force applied, the distance, and in what time.
Now repeat this but fix the other magnet, with an attracting pole facing the
one on the moving magnet, near the point B. Now when you push the moving
magnet towards point B - at some position, the magnetic attraction will
rapidly accelerate the moving magnet away from your hand, and slap it against
the fixed magnet.
Work calculations should reveal that you have done less work in pushing the
magnet, and the total work done in moving the magnet from point A to B, is at
least as much as the first test, and likely more (to accelerate the magnet
requires more force than simple moving it at a low speed - but there are
complications with friction coefficients, etc. - so I haven't done any
calculations)
But nonetheless, you have input less energy, and done less work to move the
magnet from point A to B. The extra energy was supplied by the static field
of the fixed magnet, interacting with the field of the moving one.
What if our normal, seemingly circular argument about potential vs kinetic
energy, is a convenient way to mask or hide some important concepts
regarding "Potentials".
Yes, I agree, that the goal is to find a way to harness this "free energy"
(not really free as in something from nothing - but as Bearden states -
conventional theory is limiting our "rules" to a closed system - a serious
mistake)
And I believe there are a number of demonstrations of this - one being John
Bedini's work you mentioned. What does it matter if the "free energy" comes
from the battery, or the magnetic field - if it works - so be it!
Also, please remember, ALL CHEMISTRY is electronic in nature - and involves
EM fields, and theory!!! All chemical reactions, especially in solutions,
and particularly in wet batteries - are based on electrostatic fields, field
gradients, and how these fields affect ions - in their direction of movement,
and velocity, and their interaction with other ions/molecules/atoms. It is
all based upon the net charge (excess or lack of electrons in outer shell) of
the ions/molecules/atoms.
So a free energy result of a lead acid battery is part of and supports EM
theory! (whether you subscribe to a conventional theory, or an expanded one
as in Bearden's) (although a free energy result from a battery casts some
serious doubt on the accuracy of the conventional theory)
_______________________
Similarly, the "gravity warp capacitor" report of a serious thrust, from a
static potential applied to a multitude of specially shaped plates, if true,
would seem to have the possibility of something outside conventionally
accepted theory.
(each plate has plates of opposite polarity on each side of it, except for
the end plates - hence any ion wind will be bi directional, and tend to
cancel or equalize the net force on the whole assembly - except for the outer
plates. And there are only two of these outer plates. )
(The report also indicates that the capacitor was divided into many sections,
and these were energized in sequence, and the force produced was proportional
to the number of segments energized - so the end plate ion wind is not the
likely cause of a 14 pound thrust!)
In any event, this anomalous result deserves some attention, and replication
by others - if only to verify, or negate it.
Sincerely,
DMBoss1021
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------