[Vo]:Conservation of energy
This will be a short and easy one, essentially there are two ways to look at the law of conservation of energy that seem identical but have important differences. Let's assume for the moment that energy cannot be (in a net sense) created or destroyed. So then energy can either be said to be converted, or created and destroyed in equal amounts. This might seem like the same thing but it seems that it is more true to see it as being equal creation and destruction. And by viewing it this way we can observe something about a great many devices that claim Free Energy and also some that claim Antigravity as well. And what is that? Well a lot of designs differ from more regular non-overunity designs by having sections where there is a greater level of energy being both created and destroyed. Let's propose we have two capacitors in series passing an AC current, then we charge the floating middle section, as long as we don't overcharge the capacitors this will lead to zero net change electrically to the energy passing through, but if we look at each capacitor in each moment we see that one capacitor will be opposing the current and one will be helping it. That means that one capacitor will be discharging while the other is charging, and the current passing through, the individual electrons have energy pulled from them and later given back. The same situation exists with devices that have either a noninductive coil which passes a current that is placed in an inductive field, again the current passing through it is assisted and then opposed, otherwises this is done with two coils in series connected to achieve the same zero net inductance. This also occurs with motor/generator designs, and magnets variably assisting with rotation and then opposing it. All of this activity is very relevant to what I would term aether, and what Bearden would term scalar phenomena. Imbalancing creation and destruction of energy might or might not be possible, and really neither can be proven ultimately. But it seems far more accurate to view it as generally perfectly balanced creation and destruction than conversion, treating energy as conversion seems like a very much zoomed out overview and not true to the details, and as such it is easy to overlook things that net to zero in the big picture. William Alek posted a document I have only partially skimmed but it covers elements of this: https://intalek.com/Events/TomBeardenScalarWaveTheory2022_SEM23.pdf This, along with the radiant release of energy (Tesla's phenomena) is the basis of IMO essentially all Free Energy/Antigravity/Cold Fusion and other instances where experiments produce effects that breach the regular laws of physics. Excuse the cross-posting.
Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor
i'd have to look at that very carefully in light of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbr0fQfJC-8 He cites some compelling reasons it might be busted, but, you never know. On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 03:12, Terry Blanton wrote: > It's Back...LK-99 second chance? Silicon? > > > https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:25 AM Terry Blanton wrote: > >> And a new candidate with "dancing" Cooper pairs. >> >> >> https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-identify-a-strange-new-form-of-superconductivity >> >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:31 PM Jonathan Berry < >> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Maybe, look at how both cases of levitation had one end up and one end >>> down. >>> >>> This suggests one of 2 things, they either made a ferromagnetic material >>> not a superconductor. >>> >>> OR, they made a superconductor that is only superconductive at one end. >>> >>> So a tiny bit of contamination only occurred at that point? >>> >>> Maybe the thin film technique works better because it increases chances >>> for contamination? >>> >>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 08:58, Robin >>> wrote: >>> In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:13:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Two down > > https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/ ...maybe the impurities are what it's all about. Clearly the substance they produced behaved remarkably like a superconductor. Perhaps it just needs a bit more study to determine what the real superconductor is? Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
Re: [Vo]:The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor
It's Back...LK-99 second chance? Silicon? https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:25 AM Terry Blanton wrote: > And a new candidate with "dancing" Cooper pairs. > > > https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-identify-a-strange-new-form-of-superconductivity > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:31 PM Jonathan Berry < > jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe, look at how both cases of levitation had one end up and one end >> down. >> >> This suggests one of 2 things, they either made a ferromagnetic material >> not a superconductor. >> >> OR, they made a superconductor that is only superconductive at one end. >> >> So a tiny bit of contamination only occurred at that point? >> >> Maybe the thin film technique works better because it increases chances >> for contamination? >> >> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 08:58, Robin >> wrote: >> >>> In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:13:33 -0400: >>> Hi, >>> [snip] >>> >Two down >>> > >>> > >>> https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/18/lk-99-room-temperature-superconductor/ >>> >>> ...maybe the impurities are what it's all about. Clearly the substance >>> they produced behaved remarkably like a >>> superconductor. Perhaps it just needs a bit more study to determine what >>> the real superconductor is? >>> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof. >>> >>>
