______________________________________________________________________________ | File Name : FLEXBIL1.ASC | Online Date : 12/26/95 | | Contributed by : Bill Beaty | Dir Category : ENERGY | | From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 | | KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 | | A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences | | InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker) | | Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| The following is a response to the FLEXFLO files from the InterNet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:25 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: Roamer cc: keelynet@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Keelynet's new files On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Roamer wrote: > You should check out Keelynet for the most recent file updates. > Jerry Decker has compiled quite a few new and interesting files > pertaining to electrical devices. This is one text I thought > you should see. > This is the first time I've tried sending a file with a message, > so.... Hi, got the file. But... unfortunately this has more to do with electricity misconceptions than it does with free energy. The author is mixed up about the two different things which flow in wires, and believes he has found something that violates energy conservation. Nope. I guess I come across as a raving skeptic in the following! Also, when I speak about "you" in the following, I'm talking to anyone reading this, not to Mr. Roamer. > > The first and most important principle of these circuits is the understanding > > that a resistive 'Load' DOES NOT CONSUME electricity... ...but the word "electricity" has two contradictory definitions: Electric Charge, and Electric Energy. This causes problems. Read this carefully. Resistors consume "electric energy" at the same time that "electric charge" flows through them and back out. This is something like a fan being driven by a fanbelt: the fan consumes energy and does work to stir the air, but at the same time as the BELT flows "through" the fan's pully and is not consumed at all. The fanbelt is similar to the electrons in a circuit. In the resistor and in the fan, no energy flows *through* the devices, all the energy flows INTO the devices and is consumed/converted. See? Electrons flow through things, while energy flows into things and is consumed. Electrons are not consumed, and energy does not flow through things and back out. The situation with electric circuits is usually described as if it is strange and mysterious, but it really is extremely similar to the fanbelt/fan setup. The problem is that we use the word "electricity" to name both the "fanbelt" part of a circuit and the "energy" part of a circuit. This is a rotten situation, and it leaves many people with the equivalent of the belief that the rubber of the fanbelt is a form of energy which is consumed by the fan. Sound too silly to believe? Well, believing that fanbelts are made of pure energy is the same as believing that electrons are a form of energy. No, electrons are matter. Electrons in a circuit aren't created or destroyed, they are simply pumped around and around in a circle. A battery does not supply electrons or store them. A battery is a chemically powered electron pump. Capacitors do not store electrons, they pump them. Every time an electron leaves a capacitor, another comes in through the other wire at the same time, so the total amount of electrons inside the device never change. But, at the same time the energy in the capacitor can be decreasing or increasing. Electrons are not energy! > > Nobody ever seems to notice the obvious contradiction between electricity > > passing COMPLETELY THROUGH a load and electricity being CONSUMED WITHIN a > > load. It has to be one or the other, not both. ...either that, or maybe there is something wrong with the word "electricity." And while one thing is being consumed by the load, another separate thing is flowing *through* the load. Or to put it another way, "joules" and "coulombs" are the way we measure the two flows of totally different entities in wires. Joules per second are watts, and coulombs per second are amperes. Amps are not watts. The same high-wattage load can be designed to run on high voltage and low amperage, or on low voltage and high amperage. If you tell me that a load uses "lots of electricity," you've told me nothing, because the word "electricity" is faulty, and I don't know if you're referring to the quantity of electrons or to the quantity of energy. An electrical load can use 100 watts of energy flow but with almost no electron flow. Or it can use the same 100 watts of energy flow at an enormous electrons flow. > > Resistive loads only slow down the current, they don't consume it. If they > > did, your battery would last longer on devices that consumed more > > electricity because the electrons would vanish inside the load and never > > reach the positive pole of the battery. In the real world a circuit works > > like this, one electron goes in, one electron comes out. That's just the > > way it works. Yes, this is right. > > The FLEXFLO circuits are designed to hold a volume of electricity and > > "pour" it from one bank of capacitors to another bank through a load. If > > the circuit in FLEXFLO2.GIF is constructed using standard grade > > electrolytic capacitors, it should move approximately 3 to 4 times as much > > electricity through the load area than what is actually drawn from the > > battery. (based on actual circuit measurements and calculations.) This is entirely conventional. It is a well-known effect in AC systems. A similar thing happens when you power a 12v bulb with a 10-to-1 stepdown transformer that's plugged into 120Vac. The voltage is stepped down, while the current is stepped up. If you measure the current in this bulb, it will be TEN TIMES HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT BEING DRAWN FROM THE WALL OUTLET! Would you say that the transformer magically creates ten times more "electricity?" I hope not, because the wattage going from the 120Vac outlet and into the bulb is the same all through the system, even though the current and voltage are at different levels at different places. And for a free energy device, only the wattage is important, because wattage is an amount of energy which flows over a time period. > > Over-Unity output = 3.815 coulombs or 383% "efficiency" No. "Over Unity" is a measure of energy flow. Not of coulombs or amperes. Stepup transformers can increase voltage, but we do not call them "over unity" devices. Stepdown transformers increase current (coulombs per second) but we don't say "over unity." The only time you should use the "o/u" word is when discussing energy throughput. The quantity of coulombs is unimportant if you do not measure the wattage in and out of your device. Another thought: if you wrap a superconductor wire around a magnet, connect the ends of the wire together, then remove the magnet, you create a permanent current circulating in the wire. If you measured it, you would find coulombs and coulombs flowing continuously through each part of the wire. And this continues forever. Is it a neverending source of energy? No, it is a spinning mass of matter. If you try to tap the energy from a shorted superconductor coil, the current will decrease to zero. Same as with a flywheel: use it to do work, and the flywheel slows and stops. > > Since there is a fixed amount of potential loss per cycle, it would be > > best to design a load that makes the most use of each charge cycle. The above sentence holds the key: "potential loss." If the flow of colombs per second is constant, potential loss represents energy loss. To create an overunity device, you must have INCREASING potential at constant current. You have to have voltage rises on each component which are greater than the voltage drops. You have to have excess, overunity wattage. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker ) Subject: Re: Keelynet's new files To: William Beaty Hi Bill! Thanks for the comments about the FlexFlo files....much of the Flexflo info is from George Wisemans 'Energy Conserver' material and I posted it AS RECEIVED. There are questions I have with regard to the circuit, but on weighing whether I (or anyone else) should hold back on posting it or just putting it online and letting it take its course, I chose the latter. Those questions led me to want to await verification (via KeelyNet users) of some sort and is why I did not post the FLEXFLO material to you or other InterNet contacts where it would wind up in A VERY GLOBAL FORUM and make it subject to the propensity of many InterNet folks to flame it up FROM THE START. I learned a great deal from the MRA fiasco and will not repeat it in future. It should NEVER have been posted on the InterNet (or mailed out to various newsletters/magazines) until it had been SUCCESSFULLY duplicated by other experimenters, which to date has NEVER HAPPENED (to my knowledge), despite all comments that it has. (I still get numerous phone calls reporting NO O/U success even with MANY variations.) What criteria determines duplication? How about the inverse of Puthoff/Littles or Frode Olsens report style...that is (basic); 1) equipment used 2) circuit layout 3) measurements taken at of power various points in tabular form 4) measurements of input and output in tabular form and totalled 5) measurements with various loads in tabular form The wish to believe in a working O/U device got tangled up with a lot of spook explanations (and claims) that did not bear out in the real world. Learning from the MRA experience, I felt it better to see what happened on Keelynet FIRST with FLEXFLO, after others had played with the circuit and reported with their own evaluations and ideas. (as of 12/20, FLEXFLO appears to have at least one duplication, by Dave Cahoon, as per the claim). As to the COLDFISS, even though the inventor said he produced a continuous 200 Watts over 7 months, there have not been any confirmations YET (even Perrault says no one has contacted him with a duplication). Joel McClain in fact brought up a point about possible safety hazards from x- rays or gamma emissions since it is a fission process. I asked Bruce about this and he said NO, HE HAD NOT TESTED FOR ANY KIND OF EMISSIONS. But he plans to check this out and will report on what he finds. Rruce Perrault's kids don't have flippers and the family has no ill health so he kind of doubts there is anything to worry about. After all, he's been working with these since at least 1988 and still no problems. One of the problems I have with many of the InterNet UseNets and message responses is the tendency to take issue with SEMANTICS, rather than the CONCEPTS presented. There is conceptual analysis and then there is analysis borne out by direct experiment. As I see it, it is up to THE INDIVIDUAL (reading the information) to determine whether a particular plan or idea HAS MERIT before spending both time and money on trying to duplicate it. Some people just wait until others do it and report positive results (successful duplication).... Others are very gung ho and just jump right in..in truth, I prefer the gung ho folks but mostly after they have discussed or asked questions from their peers, questions of the inventor directly and other relevant research. This way, the chances of success are much greater. Circuits and projects for ORTHODOX plans and schematics are EXPECTED to work as claimed, and IDEALLY, claimed O/U, F/E and other type alternative projects SHOULD also work as claimed. However, as Bearden points out, we are all breaking new ground and mistakes are INVEITABLE. On discovering the mistake, honest people of integrity will post the details of how the project went awry and was misinterpreted. This way, people know what happened and will look out for it in future experiments. Look at the events which surround the TOD. One of the fears of many people I have spoken with or known has been that of some kind of suppression. To minimize it, they want to post their plans and 'get it out' before anything happens. This can lead to half-baked ideas or projects. I get several of these a year that never make it online after the inventor (or someone else) finds the error and sheepishly says 'never mind'. Enthusiasm should not be allowed to overcome some kind of step by step, scientific method, especially that of successful DUPLICATION. Wouldn't it be nice to have one or more trusted friends who could verify the experiment BEFORE posting it? (Easily done on a local BBS without global exposure until it had been confirmed...) And I think tables and diagrams showing the results of the experiment, with equipment used, etc....should be necessary in a well documented paper. That, plus a caveat that this is the response WE (the inventor or person duplicating the experiment) got, if it interests you, please try to verify it using similar documentation and see if you can get the same thing. That is a reasonable approach to my way of thinking because there are no claims, hidden agendas or esoteric theories being promoted, just a report on an interesting experiment, even if it is the only working one SO FAR..... As you know, Keelynet is NOT a global board and was not intended for everyone. It has always been for people who are serious about this kind of research (including biology/ecology/gravity, etc.) and wanting to help it come into practical use through discussions which would lead to experiment and subsequent reporting of results so that EVERYONE could learn. With minimal flames, and constructive comments or corrections as warranted. Anyway, all the posted files are available as always, but I think a bit of common sense towards their release in a VERY GLOBAL FORUM is warranted. Bruce Perrault called tonite and said JW McGinnis was upset with me because he heard I had put out ALL of Perraults material on the InterNet....Bruce read the newsletter and the COLDFISS file and thought it was JUST GREAT...he said ITS was very well represented with two phones numbers, the planset number AND a FAX number and price for ordering, with a RECOMMENDATION to order the FULL set....this should get far more exposure....so I don't think JW has seen the ONLY file that was posted, NOT the FULL planset. I will call him next week and try to straighten this out....even though I bought the plans from ITS, there was NEVER any intent to post them....only after Bruce CALLED ME and we talked did he say that he wanted the plans out to as many people as possible and gave me permission to post the info....which he confirmed again tonite after reading the file...well, it seems to be a misunderstanding.... As to FLEXFLO, there will be a lot more interesting information popping up in 1996 based on the interesting phone calls and email that I've been getting here lately. Looks like this new spate of information is causing many of the closet researchers to want to throw in their two cents before it is all laid out and no one ever hears of them because they sat on the information. It's really great to see it happening. ...............................seeya and Happy Holidays!...>>> Jerry/KeelyNet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------