There has never been a real energy crisis, only forgotten knowledge

[Stravinsk]

In spite of all the rhetoric over many years by politicians and policy makers in regards to energy, energy security and the like, there has never really been an energy crisis.

Only a manufactured crisis based on lack of knowledge or forgotten knowledge.

Many are aware that during WW2 many motors and other machinery was run on biomass (usually wood). The process is relatively simple...you burn dry biomass in an oxygen low environment and then run it into the air intake or carburetor of an engine. Problem is, it needs to be cleaned first...as unrefined smoke has a lot of tar in it
that will ruin an engine. This is usually done with a series of condensers to filter out the lighter gases from those that produce tar.

I was surprised to learn recently that an engine can be run on charcoal. The advantage of this is near 0 tar, as it's already taken out during the process of making charcoal. A filter is still needed, but just for charcoal dust and ash. No big deal.

This man attached a water drip to his charcoal gassifier. Since the charcoal is burned in an oxygen low environment, any small amounts of water added are stripped of oxygen and release hydrogen. This appeared to boost power from his unit:

Wars are fought over so called "fossil fuels" when this has never been needed. The fact is, after WW2 petroleum based fuels were dirt cheap, and societies became to depend on them.

 

[Stravinsk]

Since my relatively recent foray into making bio-charcoal, my original post here reflects that.

I feel that, while important and useful, it is so inadequate on such a huge issue on the subject of energy.

I don't know where to start. I have been doing so much reading lately. My mind is blown. The subjects, broadly stated, relate to free
energy and the aether (or ether), a concept dismissed by establishment science, but has a fairly long history with humankind, involving
many great many minds, some of which most people have never heard of. It became a repressed science that only kooks and conspiracy
theorists believe. Do I believe in it? I admit I'm open but not completely convinced in relation to it, but some of the info is so compelling I'm leaning towards it. There's something there, and it's being hidden from the vast majority of humanity. On purpose. Through our education. Of Science, and of History. I don't claim to know exactly what it is, how it works and I can't say I've personally proven anything. No no. I'm just a researcher who stumbled on interesting info that I found compelling. And the various information, from several different sources, manifest in different forms, all points to this concept of the Aether or Ether.

I want to point to something and say this is evidence or this is evidence. But I can't just point to one thing. I don't want to set up a single piece of evidence to be dismissed and then to dismiss the subject entirely. But what I do want to do is point to something that I found compelling, one thing amongst many things I've been learning lately.

The subject matter at hand: Hydrogen.

What's the first thing that comes to mind? It's dangerous, requires advanced technology to store, produce cost effectively, transport, etc, right? Then there are individuals who have been completely rejected by "official science establishments" claiming to produce it in ways that achieve overunity - or more energy out than in....which violates our current science. One of those people is Stan Meyer, which a variety of "official sources" (including the US patent office) will tell you that he basically wasted his life on pseudo - science of cheaply splitting water using his unique method (note this method is not standard electrolysis, most people do not understand his method).

I don't believe that, but let's assume it's true. He discovered nothing, and everyone knows (or should know) that conventional electrolysis is a net waste of energy. It is. It's pointless from an energy standpoint, as it takes more to get less.

Today I discovered something very interesting. Most everyone is looking at this from the point of view of combining H2 (the Hydrogen Molecule) with Oxygen, either through combustion or fuel cell technology, to produce energy. H2 is what one commonly gets with standard electrolysis, along with Oxygen which can be used as is (as HHO) or separated easily into H2 and O).

But there is something different here. Combining H2 with Oxygen is not the only way to produce energy. Hydrogen Welding has long used a method of splitting the H2 molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. When atomic Hydrogen comes into contact with a metal surface, an enormous amount of heat is produced as it recombines (with H to form the H2 molecule, not oxygen!), allowing the welding of super high temperature metals.

One of the interesting things about H2 (molecular Hydrogen) and H (atomic Hydrogen) is that if one analyses the space they contain, in terms of volume, Molecular Hydrogen (or H2 - 2 Hydrogen Atoms combined) only contains about 4% more than Atomic Hydrogen. How can this be? Shouldn't Molecular Hydrogen contain TWICE the volume as 1 Atomic Hydrogen? It doesn't though. So what happens to the other 96% of energy that 2 Hydrogen atoms have and lose when they combine into H2 or Molecular Hydrogen? It's released as heat. A literal ton of it.

The heat of course can be used to produce an enormous amount of energy, including electricity.

But doesn't the energy used to split H2 into H cancel that out? Not necessarily. Way way back in 1912 it was discovered that Atomic Hydrogen could be produced using an iron-amalgam cathode in standard electrolysis. Yes, standard electrolysis is wasteful - from the viewpoint of producing H2 to combine with Oxygen to combust or run through a fuel cell. But this isn't converting water to H2, it's converting water to H, atomic hydrogen, which takes no more energy using the standard electrolysis process than producing H2 does. It's only a matter of materials, and cheap ones at that. And this process is not the only one that can produce atomic H at low energy cost.

Where does the Aether, or Ether, come in? It is a proven and known fact that Atomic Hydrogen X 2 contains more volume than Molecular Hydrogen or H2. It must get this volume from somewhere, and that somewhere is the Aether or Ether.

I'm going to credit this because I didn't discover it myself of course, but read about it. Author: William Lyne. "Occult Ether Physics" and also "The occult science dictatorship- the official state science religion and how to get officially excommunicated"

Is this author the one and only proof of free energy and the Aether (Ether)? No, he's only one amongst several now that are making me lean towards (what I admit is) a sort of weird concept.

 

[Stravinsk]

I wanted to follow up on the last post, for anyone who bothered to read it. This one will be mercifully short.

I got around to asking an AI about different energy inputs to heat a given metal at given dimensions. It recommended induction heating, resistance heating, and gas torch heating. Of course I wanted to know about H2 welding or Atomic Hydrogen Welding (AHW) which splits the H2 into H which is recombined at very high temperatures when applied to metal.

After changing it's calculation method and volume of the metal to be heated, I finally got it to use the same calculation method and same volume for all the methods. Guess which one stood out? Sure enough, it was the AHW method. And by what a factor!

The metal I selected was iron, and the volume of the metal 12 cubic inches. The metal was to be heated to 3000 degrees. AI calculated the energy input for this to be 15,600 joules for the AHW method. The other methods took more energy than this. Keep in mind this is for the whole metal to be heated to this temp, not just a single spot on it like one would normally think of in a welding application.

I asked what the thermal energy of this (the specified heated metal) would be. The answer was 14,865,000 joules!

I asked what ways this could be turned to electricity. It mentioned a thermoelectric generator (TEG), which could provide between 700k and 1.4m joules of electrical energy. O k. Remember we started with only 15,600 joules.

What about a steam turbine? Now the output energy in terms of electricity from the thermal energy is over 14 million! To be precise: 14,864,400 joules of electrical energy, which is equal to 4,129 watt-hours. All from an input of 15,600 joules.


Hint: Don't ask AI's about "free energy" because they will argue with you and tell you it's not possible. You have to ask specifically about energy input and energy output and make sure it is using a consistent calculating method and not making assumptions about the specifics (even when you give them!)

 

[Stravinsk]

It's encouraging to see younger people into this:

The concept is pretty simple. Most of the motion is achieved without input power. Where the magnetic forces seek to equalize is where a small amount of power is input. The input power is only enough to overcome the magnetic force for a small section of the rotation. Practically, this means that the majority of the motion is powerless, and as such can be used to capture power to do something else, with a power output greater than that of the input battery.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm posting this here because I tried this* myself and got results, just not his results.

* I could not find Zinc at any hardware store, just Zinc-plated steel. I also used washers with holes in them instead of solid washers. These are the only differences between what I tried and what he showed. My suspicion in my differing results is that it was probably the lack of Zinc...the Zinc coated steel likely not enough. Anyway, my results were as follows:

Connecting my Voltmeter, I got a consistent 2V reading from a set up using 5 18mm Neodymium magnets, 4 18mm Copper washers, 4 small pcs of paper, and 4 18mm Zinc-plated steel washers. The voltage however, was not steady, it consistently banged out 2V then overloaded my meter every second or so.

Edit: I wet the paper, and this fixed the fluctuating voltage problem. It now stays steady at 1.74 or so volts. In other words, IT BLOODY WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit2: I actually got an LED to light on it as well...very dimmly @ 1.74 volts...but it did light!

...But would probably do better with the actual zinc prescribed instead of my zinc-plated steel.



Magnet Energy

 

[tango]

How many amps can you draw at 1.74V. The guy in the video said you could run a house on 240V, and you can but only if you can pass enough current. You could get 240V by stacking 80 CR2032 batteries but you wouldn't run a cooker on it for very long.

 

[Stravinsk]

How many amps can you draw at 1.74V. The guy in the video said you could run a house on 240V, and you can but only if you can pass enough current. You could get 240V by stacking 80 CR2032 batteries but you wouldn't run a cooker on it for very long.

Way less than 20mA, which is typical for running a little LED. Like I said, my little LED lit up, but barely. I was more excited about the concept of it working at all, even using zinc-plated steel instead of zinc, which I am sure is a big downgrade in terms of ion transfer. Unlike commercial batteries, no strong acids, bases or salts in this little homemade battery experiment, just a few different metals, paper, magnets and a little moisture.

I messed with it a bit, increased the paper thickness to the equivalent of thin cardboard, and added an extra steel washer per stack. Doing this increased the voltage to 3.5V, but current suffered and I couldn't get the LED to light. Good practical lesson in Ohm's law I guess, V=I * R and increasing the insulator thickness along with more steel increased the resistance so increased the Voltage. Conversely, it decreased the current ( I= V/R).

You're right generally about his conclusion being somewhat misleading, because just increasing Volts does not equal increasing power. I have a circuit on the everycircuit app that will take a 9V battery and bump it up to over 2KV, but this energy is not use-able directly because the current (at the point where the 2KV is measured) is tiny. But that was the point of the circuit, to increase voltage and minimize current.

That being said, he said he was using .5mm magnets (to my 18mm) and what looked like wafer thin pieces of paper, copper and whatever the zinc was. I can't imagine that's a lot of resistance compared to what I tried.

 

[Stravinsk]

The above post might sound confusing or contradictory to what I'm going to say here, so just to clear stuff up:

I went back to the original set up, using a 1 18mm magnet, 1 18mm copper washer, 1 piece of paper, and 1 zinc-coated steel washer. This is repeated 6x for the six magnets I have. Originally, I only added a bit of moisture to the paper and got a 1.75V reading (I didn't measure amps) and it was able to light an LED very dimly.

So, to facilitate higher ion flow, this time I changed nothing except the paper...still the same thin paper, but this time dipped in a saline/vinegar solution. 1 piece of this paper for each cell in the stack.

I also added 1 small sheet of Aluminum for the stack to sit on. This way I can take readings from the Aluminum without disturbing the bottom of the stack.

I tripled checked this. My readings:

From Aluminum base to top of cell stack (no load)-

Voltage: 3.9V
Current: 0.5mA (this is 1/2 of 1 mA, or 500uA (microAmps)- a very tiny amount of current. )

From Aluminum base to top of cell stack (LED load). This type of LED is typically a 2V that runs on 20mA

Voltage: 1.78V
Current: 0.4mA-0.5mA

This LED should NOT be lit under this about 1/2 mA of current. 400-500uA or 0.0005A does not light these LED's. But my LED is lit. So there is something about what this guy is saying in the video about the magnets. This current is so small it's next to nothing, yet that's all that's being drawn to light the LED, which would normally light at 40X the current, or 20mA.

Hey, it's possible my multimeter is broken, but these are the readings I got after testing multiple times.

 

[Stravinsk]

I know no one is viewing the link I provided in post #5 of this thread, except for Tango. It's had 1 view. That's ok, ya'll probably think it's
bull stuff.

So I challenge you to do it. But before you do, do this. Go to any decent circuit sim program and put in a 2V 20mA LED against a 4V voltage. If you use much less than a 100ohm resister, you're LED will blow. End of LED. If you do not use a resister at all, your LED will blow, end of LED.
Or you can do this if you have a few batteries that add up to 4V in series, some hook up wire etc. Or a breadboard. Do it.

I'm running a cell stack in real life that shows 4V, and I am not using a resister at all with an LED connected, it's lighting up bright, not blowing up, and drawing so little current it's insane, because of the info in the video, using an unconventional form of electricity.

 

[tango]

It's interesting stuff for sure, even if it directly contradicts everything we've been taught about physics it's worth at least a passing glance. Maybe that's just me.

I'm still interested in how long the contraption can provide the current. If it can provide a current that's enough to do anything and hold it for a substantial amount of time it becomes more interesting. If producing the current consumes the zinc and/or copper then essentially it's a variation of a battery with a finite life, and becomes at least somewhat less interesting.

Maybe I'll see if I can get some neodymium magnets, copper and zinc from the hardware store. I imagine I can try it for myself pretty cheaply. I'm trying to remember my physics classes from my school days about left hand rules and right hand rules and wondering if they are somehow relevant to all this.