ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 240 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Negative Energy Guide
    Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2002 @ 09:37:00 GMT by vlad

    Devices Tim Harwood writes: In 1992-1993, Mr Robert Adams of New Zealand put a working free energy device into the public domain. Since then several people have replicated it, but it is one of those situations where everyone stands around waiting for someone else to do something. Tim Harwood has for the first time, placed a detailed guide to construction into the public domain, and as a recent development, a wholly original solid state derivation of the Adams motor besides. It is hoped with the widespread distribution of the underlying theory behind negative energy manifestation, combined with simple how to device construction guides, a revolution in science can now rapidly be ushered in.



    The file is too large to be posted in this box.

    It can be downloaded from this attachment.


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Devices
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Devices:
    Overunity magnet motor released !


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 5
    Votes: 1


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Negative Energy Guide" | Login/Create an Account | 11 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, May 26, 2002 @ 22:49:00 GMT
    vlad (vlad@zpenergy.com) writes: Tim,

    The file is excellent and I hope people will step up and help to move this research forward.

    You're not the first one who challenges my statement in the Remember box that: "As of TODAY, still NO PROVEN DEVICE that harnesses USEFUL POWER from the ZPE." In my opinion, for the statement to be removed the two attributes "Proven" and "Useful" must be met.
    Even though for you and many other experimenters who have build/seen these devices working, the proof is clear, in reality, for the rest of the people, the proof can only come in two ways: The scientist will officially admit these claims are true (measurements) or a device is produced commercially and people can use it and laugh at the skeptics that say it doesn't exist! Of course, the power produced must be useful, because toys that run cold and forever are nice, but nobody cares.
    Don't get me wrong; these toys are important to prove the concept and stimulate the scientific world, but from a practical perspective, we have to go after the proof as stated above to trigger the new energy revolution and for you, or any other inventor for that matter who succeeds, to get the Nobel prize!




    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Monday, May 27, 2002 @ 06:14:00 GMT
    Tim Harwood (timharwood@usa.net) writes: Skepticism is fine so long as it is not excessive. Not everyone who has tried to replicate the motor template I have offered has been successful. However, several have been successful, and some people getting results have now been kind enough to submit pictures. This has added enormous credibility to my previous statements, since with work and application, 100% independent replications are now clearly shown to be possible. What I have designed is basically the logical cut down simplified 'home edition' of the Adams motor, and perfecting the bizarre and non standard rotor / stator geometry was very important. In this respect I simply did what Mr Adams informed me was required (4:1 clearly stated in the patent and Nexus articles) and built it as stated.
    As for the POD unit, when properly adjusted is it basically the old Sweet SQM / VTA unit reborn, but simpler, cheaper, more reliable, and able to use cheap standard off the shelf Radio Shack ceramic magnets, with no 'treatment' required. It is a very exciting technology that may become the basis for all energy research going forwards. Again, while not everyone gets results, there are people out there who seem very happy with their independently constructed POD units. The replication 'hit rate' for these experiments, while certainly not 100%, seems to be far ahead of anything else yet tried. And as I always say, why not try building both? Since the underlying physics is identical, if you can just get either the motor or POD to work, you will probably learn enough to make the other device work also.
    Finally, I agree with the two conditions set 'proven' and 'useful.' The proof will come as yet more replications stack up above many already claimed. As for the 'useful,' given the astonishingly low cost base of POD units, the lack of moving parts, and the 100% 'off the shelf Radio Shack' nature of the device, I can not think of anything more useful then POD. It can be added as a simple $50 upgrade to existing DC motors, hence no major round of new investment will be required to make use of it.
    Tim.



    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 15, 2002 @ 14:11:00 GMT
    Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes:
    Tim,

     
    ', '
    If you want people to take you seriously then you need to address
    these issues
    which I have posted in response to your claims on multiple
    email lists:

     

     
    ', '
    =========

     

    What we need to see from this group with regards to the POD is ', 'this:
     
     
    1.  Start with 2 batteries (or capacitors), 1
    charged, 1 discharged.
    ', '
     

    2.  Run the device off the charged battery, using it to charge up the
    discharged one.

     

    3.  Switch the batteries.  Repeat.

     

    After a number of repetitions, they should end up with two fully charged
    (or very nearly so)
    batteries.
    ', '
     

    If they are getting OU this *should* work... *Right*?

     

    If this works (which I doubt) then the next step would be to perform a
    comparative power test, or better yet, a calorimeter.  A lot of OU
    'disappears' when measured with highly accurate instruments vs. cheap ", 'DMMs.
     

    What we also need see from this group with respect to endothermic
    operation ('cold running') in Tim Harwood's Adams-type motor is
    this:
     
    1.  Isolate the item (transistor, coil, etc) to undergo
    temperature measurement from all moving air produced by the rotor.  Also
    isolate the ambient temperature thermometer/thermocouple.  This needs to be
    done because I have read a report on another list of an experimenter observing a
    temperature drop which disappeared after he isolated his probe from the air
    being moved by his motor.
     
    2.  If using a thermocouple instead
    of a mercury thermometer, move the item to be measured FAR AWAY from the coil,
    moving magnets and power source.  This is because another experimenter has
    noted that thermocouple measurements can be made highly inaccurate by a moving
    magnetic field!
     
    3.  Measure the ambient room temperature and
    the item BEFORE starting the motor.  Amazingly, no one has even done this ', 'yet!
     
    4.  Take measurements over TIME.
     
    5. 
    Switch the thermometers and repeat to help account for margin of
    error.
     
    If results are achieved, then further testing with more
    sensitive thermometers is in order.  One would expect a large temperature
    difference from Tim Harwood's reports ( 'It runs stone cold' etc., ad
    infinitum). 


    ========

     

     
    ', '
    Without addressing these issues, there is NO EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
    WHATSOEVER
    for your claims, only your 'say so'.

     

    Your theories are another matter, as anyone familiar with the material of
    Adspen, Bearden and Dragone can clearly see you've simply plagiarized from them
    and cobbled together an assortment of bits and pieces from their works.

     

    Dave Narby
    (aka Dave N.)



    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 @ 14:31:00 GMT
    Tim Harwood (timharwood@usa.net) writes: Dave, the tests you demand were performed by an independant third party many months ago, as you well know.

    http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/podr1.html', '
    What is your agenda is spreading such falsehoods?

    Who pays you to do this? Exxon-Mobil?

    You seem to spend all day every day sending me abusive emails. You should get out more.

    Tim.




    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 @ 16:04:00 GMT
    Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes:
     

    Tim,

     
    ', '
    Unless the page you referenced has been updated as of 6:45
    PM EST, anyone can see that there is NO test posted there like the one I
    described earlier
    .

     

    I find it ironic that you accuse me of falsehoods when you
    so blatantly indulge in them yourself.  I am confident at this point that
    it IS a falsehood (and not a simple misunderstanding) as
    this is the fifth or sixth time I have requested this test be done.  The
    public record on JLN's Yahoo group list, the Sweet VTA list and the NuEnergy
    list all contain it now and are part of the public record, as is this.  ', '

     

    I would also like to recommend that you skip the
    accusations and ad hominem personal attacks if you wish to retain a shred of
    credibility. 

     
    ', '
    If they work as claimed, I fail to understand why you
    continue to resist exacting testing of your devices.

     

     

    Dave Narby
    ', '
     

     

     



    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 @ 14:09:00 GMT
    Tim Harwood (timharwood@usa.net) writes: Dave,

    You are utterly obsessed with slandering me. Every day a new slander. I think you are a paid agent of the oil companies. What normal person could be so obsessive? You have a one man crusade going here, to be sure.

    The reason people who have replicated POD do not wish me to post their names, address, and phone numbers, as you desire, is because guys like you scare them off.

    If abusive types like you did not exist, these people would be willing to come forward.

    The tests you demand, were carried out months ago by a fully independant third party, who contacted me and summarized his results.
    ', 'http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/podr1.html

    Now, if you wish to play this game of accusing everyone who has replicated the Adams motor and the POD unit of being delusional / a lair, then that is fine by me.
    I've seen the physics on my lab bench, so have they, we know it is for real.
    I will not respond further to your slanders.

    Who is Dave N anyway?

    Tim.




    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 20, 2002 @ 12:34:00 GMT
    Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes:

     

    Tim:


    | New posting on 'ZPEnergy.com':
    | Tim Harwood
    wrote:
    |
    | Dave, You are utterly obsessed with slandering me. Every day a
    new slander.

     

    Slander is spoken. You meant libel.  Libel
    involves misrepresentation.  I have not done this.  This is moot ', 'however, as everyone reading this has the facts in this argument.  They
    will make up their own minds.

     

     

    | I think you are a
    | paid agent of the oil
    companies.

     

    Now, that is libel.  Thanks
    for proving to everyone here you're a ", 'hypocrite.

     

    I warned you skip the ad hominem personal
    attacks.

     

     

    | What normal person could be so
    obsessive?

    | You have a one man
    |
    crusade going here, to be sure.

     

    Perhaps I am on a crusade.  People do that
    for the truth quite often.  But it's easily arguable that I'm not ", 'obsessed - I actually have to spend very little time rebutting your
    arguments.
    ', '
     

     

    | The reason people who have replicated POD do not ', 'wish me to post
    | their names, address, and phone numbers, as you desire, is
    because guys like you scare them
    | off. If abusive types like you did not
    exist, these people would be willing to come forward.
    ', '
     

    Anyone can see that I have simply asked that a
    basic test be performed.  You are the one abusing me  by
    accusing  me of being obsessed, a stooge for the oil companies, abusive
    etc.  You are quite adept at this tactic of accusing someone of something
    and then immediately doing it to them!

     

    If these people who you claimed to have
    replicated the POD do not come forward for further tests, then they're results
    are less than useless.  If they exist at all.

     

     

    | The
    | tests you demand, were carried out months
    ago by a fully independant third party, who
    | contacted me and summarized his
    results.
    |
    http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/podr1.htmlface=Arial>

     

    Again, this page obviously does not have the tests ', 'results contained in my previous challenge.  Anyone can see
    that!

     
    ', '
     

    | Now, if you wish to play this game of
    | accusing
    everyone who has replicated the Adams motor and the POD unit of being delusional
    / a
    | lair, then that is fine by me.
    ', '
     

    You are trying to put words in my mouth.  I
    have not said they were liars.  I have not said they were delusional. 
    I have not said anything about them.  My comments have been towards
    you.  This is another tactic you are quite adept ', 'in!

     

    I will say now that they are MISTAKEN
    and WRONG.  They have not performed even the most basic tests.  ', 'After the battery charging test, the next step would be more accurate
    instrumentation (i.e. an oscilloscope) and after that a comparative power test
    (better yet, a calorimeter).   Checking Pin vs. Pout with a cheap DMM
    proves nothing except that a better test has to be
    performed.

     

     
    ', "
    | I've seen the physics on my lab bench, so have
    they, we know it is for
    | real.

     

    I will admit that It's obvious that you
    think you do.

     

     

    | I will not respond further to your slanders. Who is Dave
    N anyway? Tim.
    ', '
     

    My name is Dave Narby, as previously
    noted. 
    We might very well ask the same thing
    of Tim Harwood. 
    I am heartened by the fact that
    you are going to stop responding to this thread as you do not seem to be able to
    introduce any new information, but merely repeat your protestations that the
    tests have been done and that I am being unfair in my criticisms.  It is
    rapidly proving to be a waste of time to try and get any real information out of
    you, as you respond by putting words in people's mouths to create 'straw ", "men' that you may then destroy.

     

    BTW, thank you for providing an easy way to sum up
    the measurement and testing inadequacies in your POD and Adams motor variant
    and your evasiveness in rectifying it.  I have been linking to this
    thread in emails as a way of quickly summing up the arguments.  Thanks
    for saving me the time I used to spend cutting and
    pasting.
    ', '
     

     

    Dave Narby

     



    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 21, 2002 @ 12:05:00 GMT
    vlad (vlad@zpenergy.com) writes: Gentlemen, please...let's cut it here. The important fact is that Bill, Tim, John (and others) are working together on the eBike project and the 3610-30 SmartPak model wired in self-powered mode using an "over-unity" Head (POD) Assembly, if it works as intended, would be the final test (proof) many are waiting for. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smartpak/files/System/3610eBikeSelf.gif



    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, August 15, 2002 @ 12:58:00 GMT
    Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes:

    ', '
    Hi Vlad (I assume Tim is staying True to his word and ignoring this
    thread),

     
    ', '
    There have been some recent developments that I thought I would add
    here.

     

    It appears that one of Tim's group members may have reproduced the Bedini
    method of making a negative resistor in a battery:
    http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Bedini.pdf
    by
    using an Adam's style pulsemotor setup:
    http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/replication4.html

     

    This is consistent with how Bedini did it.

     

    Also, there seems to be a problem with Tim's 'theory':
    http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/adams.html
    since ', 'it requires permanent magnets - this is because someone else has shown that a
    POD type device without the magnets or steel core actually performs better than
    with them:
    http://sparky.cis.smu.edu/wca/motor_pictures/airpod.html
    Whether
    or not the Bedini negative resistor phenomenon can be observed with these setups
    remains to be seen, I have asked the experimenter to investigate this.

     

    To date, Tim has not even addressed any of the testing methods I outlined
    in this thread and continues to simply insist that he's done enough to prove his devices work as claimed.

     

    Thought you would like to know.

     
    ', '
    Best,

     

    Dave N.



    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, September 28, 2002 @ 09:17:00 GMT
    Wakan writes: I think it would benefit us all if we could develop a generalized test procedure to begin with... maybe post it on this website? so all experimenters can have a standardized guage and be on the same level so we might avoid disputes like this.. im new to this site so if this has already been done please disregard this.



    Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, September 29, 2002 @ 18:25:00 GMT
    vlad (vlad@zpenergy.com) writes: Wakan, you are right, but easy said than done. I have seen a few attempts to do just that for different types of devices with various types of output power... but nothing like a comprehensive generalized test procedure so far. If you want to see some of the problems and proposed solutions, I'm attaching here a recent extract from the KeelyNet discussion list, on the topic of "measuring power".



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.