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

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· 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, 300 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

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

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science


    ECW E-Cat World


    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times



    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    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

    U.S. patent application published no. 20070007844
    Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 @ 20:48:24 GMT by vlad

    Devices Anonymous writes: Self-sustaining electric-power generator utilizing electrons of low inertial mass to magnify inductive energy


    Electrical oscillations in a metallic "sending coil" radiate inductive photons toward one or more "energy-magnifying coils" comprised of a photoconductor or doped semiconductor coating a metallic conductor, or comprised of a superconductor. Electrons of low inertial mass in the energy-magnifying coil(s) receive from the sending coil a transverse force having no in-line backforce, which exempts this force from the energy-conservation rule.

    The low-mass electrons in the energy-magnifying coil(s) receive increased acceleration proportional to normal electron mass divided by the lesser mass. Secondarily radiated inductive-photon energy is magnified proportionally to the electrons' greater acceleration, squared. E.g., the inductive-energy-magnification factor of CdSe photoelectrons with 0.13.times. normal electron mass is 59.times.. Magnified inductive-photon energy from the energy-magnifying coil(s) induces oscillating electric energy in one or more metallic "output coil(s)." The electric energy output exceeds energy input if more of the magnified photon-induction energy is directed toward the output coil(s) than is directed as a counter force to the sending coil. After an external energy source initiates the oscillations, feedback from the generated surplus energy makes the device a self-sustaining generator of electric power for useful purposes.

    Inventors: Barbat; William N.; (Lake Oswego, OR)
    Assignee Name and Adress: Levitronics, Inc.

    General Technical Considerations

    [0038] An understanding of how infinite energy mistakenly came to be rejected by the scientific community clarifies the basis of this invention. The electrodynamic function described in the embodiments described later below conforms to Helmholtz's alternate energy rule, which states that a force that is not in-line with its causative force "may be either lost or gained ad infinitum." This rule was included in "Uber die Erhaltung der Kraft" ("On the Conservation of Force") that Hermann Helmholtz delivered to the Physical Society of Berlin in 1847. But, Helmholtz mistakenly believed that "all actions in nature are reducible to forces of attraction and repulsion, the intensity of forces depending solely upon the distances between points involved . . . [so i]t is impossible to obtain an unlimited amount of force capable of doing work as the result of any combination whatsoever of natural objects."

    [0039] Helmholtz refused to accept the idea that magnetic energy qualifies for ad infinitum status despite the fact that Ampere's (1820) magnetic force on parallel straight conductors is obviously transverse to the direction of the electric currents rather than being in-line with the currents. He omitted mention that the magnetic force in Ampere's (1825) important invention, the solenoidal electromagnet, is caused by currents in the loops of his coils, which are transverse to the direction of magnetic force. Also, he failed to mention that Ampere considered the magnetic force of a permanent magnet to be caused by minute transverse circular currents, which are now recognized as electrons that spin and orbit transversely.

    [0040] Helmholtz, who was educated as a military medical doctor without any formal study of physics, relied instead on an obsolete metaphysical explanation of magnetic force: "Magnetic attraction may be deduced completely from the assumption of two fluids which attract or repel in the inverse ratio of the square of their distance . . . . It is known that the external effects of a magnet can always be represented by a certain distribution of the magnetic fluids on its surface." Without departing from this belief in magnetic fluids, Helmholtz cited Wilhelm Weber's (1846) similarly wrong interpretation that magnetic and inductive forces are directed in the same line as that between the moving electric charges that cause the forces.

    [0041] Weber had thought that he could unify Coulombic, magnetic, and inductive forces in a single, simple equation, but Weber's flawed magnetic-force term leads to the absurd conclusion that a steady current in a straight wire induces a steady electric current in a parallel wire. Also, a changing current does not induce an electromotive force in-line with the current, as Weber's equation showed. The induced force is offset instead, which becomes more apparent the further that two nested, coaxial coils are separated. What appears to be a directly opposing backforce is actually a reciprocal inductive force.

    [0042] Helmholtz's assertion that the total sum of the energy in the universe is a fixed amount that is immutable in quantity from eternity to eternity appealed to his young friends. But, the elder scientists of the Physical Society of Berlin declared his paper to be "fantastical speculation" and a "hazardous leap into very speculative metaphysics," so it was rejected for publication in Annalen der Physik. Rather than accept this rejection constructively, Helmholtz found a printer willing to help him self-publish his work. Helmholtz headed the publication with a statement that his paper had been read before the Society, but he disingenuously withheld mention of its outright rejection. Unwary readers have since received the wrong impression that his universal energy-conservation rule had received the Society's endorsement rather than its censure.

    [0043] Helmholtz (1862, 1863) publicized his concept thusly: "[W]e have been led up to a universal natural law, which . . . expresses a perfectly general and particularly characteristic property of all natural forces, and which . . . is to be placed by the side of the laws of the unalterability of mass and the unalterability of the chemical elements." Helmholtz (1881) declared that any force that did not conserve energy would be "in contradiction to Newton's axiom, which established the equality of action and reaction for all natural forces" [sic]. With this deceitful misrepresentation of Newton's strictly mechanical principle, Helmholtz had craftily succeeded in commuting the profound respect for Newton's laws to his unscientific doctrine. Subsequently, the Grand Cross was conferred on Helmholtz by the kings of Sweden and Italy and the President of the French Republic, and he was welcomed by the German Emperor into nobility with the title of "von" added to his name. These prestigious awards made his doctrine virtually unassailable in the scientific community.

    [0044] Ampere's principle of transverse magnetic attraction and repulsion between electric currents had been made into an equation for the magnetic force between moving electric charges by Carl Frederick Gauss (written in 1835, published posthumously in 1865). The critical part of Gauss's equation shows, and modem physics texts agree, that magnetic force is transverse to the force that imparts a relative velocity (i.e., perpendicular to a connecting line) between charges. Lacking a direct backforce, a transverse magnetic force can produce a greater force than the force that causes it.

    [0045] The only physicist to recognize in print the profound significance of Gauss's work was James Clerk Maxwell (1873), who stated, "[If Gauss's formula is correct,] energy might be generated indefinitely in a finite system by physical means." Prepossessed with Helmholtz's "law," Maxwell chose not to believe Gauss's transverse magnetic-force equation and accepted Wilhelm Weber's (1846) erroneous in-line formula instead. Maxwell even admitted knowing of Gauss's (1845) rebuke of Weber for his mistaken direction of magnetic force as "a complete overthrow of Ampere's fundamental formula and the adoption of essentially a different one."

    [0046] In 1893 the critical part of Ampere's formula for magnetic force, which Weber and Maxwell rejected, and which Helmholtz had replaced with his contrary metaphysical explanation, was proposed for the basis for the international measure of electric current, the Ampere (or amp), to be defined in terms of the transverse magnetic force that the current produces. But Helmholtz's doctrine had become so impervious to facts that anyone who challenged this "law" faced defamation and ridicule.

    [0047] The first recognition of unlimited energy came from Sir Joseph Larmor who reported in 1897, "[A] single ion e, describing an elliptic orbit under an attraction to a fixed center . . . must rapidly lose its energy by radiation . . . [but] in the cases of steady motion it is just this amount that is needed to maintain the permanency of motion in the aether." Apparently to mollify critics of his heretical concept, Larmor offered a half-hearted recantation in 1900: "[T]he energy of orbital groups . . . would be through time sensibly dissipated by radiation, so that such groups could not be permanent."

    [0048] In 1911 Rutherford found that an atom resembles a small solar system with negative ions moving like planets around a small, positively charged nucleus. These endlessly orbiting electrons were a source of the perpetual radiation that had been aptly described by Larmor, and these orbiting electrons were also Planck's (1911) "harmonic oscillators" that he used to explain Zero-Point Energy (ZPE). ZPE was shown by the fact that helium remains liquid under atmospheric pressure at absolute zero, so that helium must be pressurized to become solid at that temperature. Planck believed that harmonic oscillators derived "dark energy" from the aether to sustain their oscillations, thereby admitting that an infinite source of energy exists. However, he assigned an occult origin to this infinite energy rather than a conventional source that had not met with Helmholtz's approval.

    Read more



    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: 2

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    Associated Topics


    "U.S. patent application published no. 20070007844" | Login/Create an Account | 3 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: U.S. patent application published no. 20070007844 (Score: 1)
    by modernsteam on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 @ 08:20:50 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Hello to Mr Barbat, and to Levitronics:

    I do hope you get your patent. As we know, however, even today, the U.S. Patent Office is not wont to grant patents for self-sustaining devices (another term for over-unity) because of the worship of the Laws of Thermodynamics (no "free lunch" etc., etc.) in the physics community (more like a red-neck physics "gang", if y'ask me!). Speaking only for myself, I feel that, should you not be granted a patent, and all your information is thus made public for the whole world to see, everything should be done to ensure that no one uses any of your hard-gotten technology against your will while paying you nothing for it. Morally, as I see it, you own the technology, whether or not you receive the patent, or having received it, lose it because certain high-ranking "scum", having the "ear" of the Patent Office, wish to ensure that not even real Free Energy technology is ever produced.

    Hal Ade

    Did Paul Brown duplicate the Hubbard Coil? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Saturday, February 17, 2007 @ 13:01:08 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    From http://www.keelynet.com/#whatsnew [www.keelynet.com] U.S. Pat. No. 4,835,433 to Brown superficially resembles the drawing of Hubbard's device. Brown's device appears to have the same number and essentially the same general arrangement of wire coils as Hubbard's generator, as nearly as can be understood from the newspaper articles depicting that device. Apparently no information concerning either the Hubbard or Hendershot devices was considered during prosecution of the '433 patent. Brown discusses the conversion of energy of radioactive decay products, principally alpha emissions, to electrical energy by amplifying electrical oscillations in a high-Q L-C circuit irradiated by radioactive materials. "During the absorption process, each alpha particle will collide with one or more atoms in the conductor knocking electrons from their orbits and imparting some kinetic energy to the electrons in the conductor thereby increasing its conductivity." (Col. 3, line 68 to col. 4, line 5.) No claim was made by Brown that the device employed a semiconductor or photoconductor that could have provided low-mass electrons for energy magnification. Brown claimed an output of 23 amps at 400 volts, which is vastly greater than all the decay-energy represented by his reported radioactive content of 1 milligram of radium that was surrounded by weakly radioactive uranium rods and thorium powder. Powdered thorium is highly pyrophoric, so it is typically sealed in a nitrogen atmosphere to prevent spontaneous combustion. In his device Brown reportedly confined the thorium in cardboard without any mention of sealing out air. This condition would have invited a meltdown that could have been misinterpreted as massive out-of-control electrical production. / This Resonant Nuclear Battery is a radioisotope electric power system that absorbs the collapsing magnetic field of alpha and beta radiation and converts it directly to Alternating electrical current. This effect does not rely on a nuclear reaction or chemical processes and does not produce radioactive waste products. This Resonant Nuclear Battery is an LCR resonant circuit oscillating at its self-resonating frequency with energy supplied by the alpha-beta collapsing magnetic fields. A prototype 'NUCELL' the size of a small automobile engine produced approximately 50 kilowatts! / The Nuclear Solutions technology, which Dr. Brown terms "photo-deactivation," involves irradiation of specific isotopes to force emission of a neutron, which produces an isotope of reduced atomic mass. The resultant isotopes are characteristically either not radioactive or radioactive with a short half-life.

    Re: U.S. patent application published no. 20070007844 (Score: 1)
    by techmac on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 @ 19:44:13 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.geocities.com/mgmlab04
    I read the patent application and studied it over to gain an understanding of its operation. The only part I was not sure about was the particle physics involving the low mass electrons in the energy magnifiying coil. The substitution of a permanent magnet for the energy magnifying coil would make the system behave much like a MEG or similarly energetic device.
    The understanding that a moving electromagnetic field causes spin on the surrounding electron-positron pairs of the photon field to make a virtual magnet is what motivates experimenters to intermix coils and magnets. Especially since Howard Johnson's description of the photonic spin that is always present within a magnet.


    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.