Free Energy: Exploring and Discussing the Searl Generator's Magnets, Rings & Rollers

jamtex wrote:

Most things, and maybe everything we do in our lives, we do for a purpose.

A colleague rightly noticed - for some purpose. Speaking of which, how about the fact that it is no coincidence that some people are sent to primary school? There is nothing to be offended because there may be a lot of truth unconsciously uttered here.
Take this as a clue.

Perhaps the goal is for them to recall some knowledge that was taught there, such as the definitions of basic concepts, because the lack of agreement on them makes communication impossible. But maybe those who demonstrate a lack of understanding of concepts do not want to communicate with those who know something?

Oh: this information about Searl's generator (and probably other matters regarding the alleged means of obtaining free energy - I have the impression that not everything is about Searl) I haven't been able to look at yet - I've had too many other things.

A bit of laziness and a bit of convenience, I left myself a lot of books on various subjects and schools.
Now I have found (if someone sent me to school ), because there is a lot of information in them that cannot be found even on the Internet, and that could be basic information on a given subject.
Currently, it is even the sequence of mathematical operations that he teaches only in college.
In the UK, you can easily check who in college had a math with the old example 2 + 2x3
If the result is 8, he had math and graduated.

_jta_ wrote:

Perhaps the goal is for them to recall some knowledge that was taught there, such as the definitions of basic concepts, because the lack of agreement on them makes communication impossible.

Once a physicist (I don't remember his name anymore) said something interesting, at least in my opinion, and it sounded like this: back to the basics and there are new ways and opportunities.

So we need to remember something, but it is not about definitions or concepts - they will be needed later. It is more generally a manifestation of the existence of reality, which actually exists as a whole of interactions. And here a question mark should be put. ;)

_jta_ wrote:

But perhaps those who demonstrate a lack of understanding of concepts refuse to communicate with those who know something.

Should I take it literally or figuratively? ;)

Added after 27 [minutes]:

saskia wrote:

A bit of laziness and a bit of convenience, I left myself a lot of books on various subjects and schools.
Now I have found (if someone sent me to school ), because there is a lot of information in them that cannot be found even on the Internet, and that could be basic information on a given subject.

That's it. I also left all my books from elementary school to college, and I was always surprised at the behavior of my colleagues who snatched or sold their books after finishing a given subject. I have never been a humanist by passion, but I love technical knowledge, which is why I mostly use books of this type. Well, I am attracted to it ...

Our studies are like they are, a lot of people want to cram into their heads, and not every brain can keep up with it and in the end they start to ignore learning and start downloading. Later, a man remembers that there was something but that he did not understand what it was about, he did not remember it exactly and now he has gaps. Books can be a salvation for this. And what I regret is that not enough things are learned through examples - in application (because it is easier to remember this way, learning through associations).
I wrote too much off topic, but everyone knows how it is.

Now, everything has rushed up so much that for having some school books from the 70's you can land in the famous Cuban bay.
For example, chemistry up to the 3rd grade in the school class of 74 edition 7, author, Zbigniew Gessek.
Soon, teaching at all will be forbidden, and schools will go underground, as it was during the occupation. :-(

For this sending back to school and old textbooks, you will also be able to land in a well-known bay.

Radd - Without using the concepts in a commonly accepted way (including the purpose of school to teach it), it is impossible to describe what is being done in a way that would be communicated. These concepts have developed over many centuries; science changed them when phenomena were discovered that could not be described using the existing concept system, but then it was necessary to determine how to translate the descriptions between the old and the new concept system. In the field of "free energy" on our forum, I met with the fact that someone claimed that an over-efficiency was obtained, and in fact, he measured and counted the power obtained at the output and the power lost in the resistor of the system, the first one was e.g. 4 times greater, so he decided that it has an efficiency of 400% - the real efficiency is the output power divided by the input power, which in this case is 80% (because 1/5 of the power was lost, 4/5 reached the output) - it was a confusion.

Oh, I found a DVD with these descriptions, I don't know how much of it is about Sears, but the whole thing is 824 files (741 different), 4,308,620,673 bytes, most of which are pictures for copied websites - counting them down, there are 226 files (199 different ), including 4 .EXE (3 different) - some reading programs (Adobe Reader, RealPlayer, GoogleVideoPlayer * 2). By the way, trying to read my drive crashed so I had to shut down my computer (there was some error and the drive wouldn't work or open, even after restarting the computer).

If you had a drive from SEG, nothing would hang, at most you would not have to use a desk. :-)

As you have noticed, the theories have changed and new concepts and descriptions have been introduced, and this would mean that most who graduated from school 30, 20 or even 10 years ago should learn new concepts and terms recently invented by scientists.

Gentlemen _jta, Saskia you are both right but I would prefer not to make a problem out of it, you can always get along even in colloquial language. And if someone does not understand something, you need to ask the other person to explain it more easily. Everything is for people.

saskia - It's not about learning new concepts, but about sticking to a standard.

Radd - You can explain yourself, but it sometimes takes weeks, sometimes longer, even many years. :-(

As for the 824 files: 61 of them contain the word "copyright", so I guess these can't be uploaded;
what else should I check? Well, the question of which server can you throw about 4GB?

At the outset, I would like to add that I am not trying to convince anyone or make water from the brain.
_jta regarding the methods of work that the science you wrote about previously, I wanted to refer to a little bit from a different barrel, although maybe similar, but something else was on my mind.
Let us set aside the current view for a moment that this is a hoax and we will get carried away by the curious reasoning of the observer.
Let us assume that the device concerned could have been built sometime in the past, regardless of why it is not in common use now, because it prevents us from going any further.
So we have a constructor (it can be anyone) who describes the individual elements and partially explains the way of operation, which he may not fully understand himself.
Let's try to x-ray it for a person who has an idea and wants to build something - as something real.
A man like everyone else would use thought patterns that he learned from childhood, i.e. what life taught him.
Such a man would have at his disposal all the achievements of science to which he may have access in a given epoch, and technology.
Using available means, such an individual builds a given device and it turns out that it works and something new has been discovered.

And here is my conclusion regarding the methods:
Get yourselves together and put all your physical knowledge and a piece of paper under the magnifying glass. Divide the card into 3 boxes in which you will put:
- what is known and can be seen with the eye
- what you are not sure if it applies
- what will not apply at all (this is also important)
Now the game of associations begins, i.e. comparing and asking yourself questions, e.g .:
why the ring, why the magnets, why the shape, what it resembles and what it reminds me of from what I know, what I would do to set it in motion.
At some point you will give up and find that nothing can be picked up anymore - a mistake. The best way then is to let go, but not quit completely. Almost every day something new will be added - just remember the associations.
And I repeat it again and I can repeat it endlessly, not to build unknowingly by copying the appearance - this is how the sheep rush works, which equates to loss of money and disappointment.

I will add a little flavor from myself. Look for a hidden second engine there, but don't get excited when you find it - it's still a long way to go, and anything else can only be an illusion. I wish I could say cdn. but unfortunately some things are better not to be spoken out loud. Perhaps time will allow it ...

Understanding coms with time faster and faster

I do not give up there, I eat with this coke completely.
And in retirement, I will have a decent time, unless I do not live. :-(

So off topic. Information should be displayed here, something like information on telephones during martial law. Controlled conversation, Controlled writing and the name of the controlling institution given. :-)

And I don't mean Moderators here, because they have nothing to do with it.

It should be added and remember that the author of the invention himself was not able to build it for 50 years.
He had money from sponsors, he made money from books, and he didn't build a working device.
He probably did not know whether he had built something or dreamed about it when he was a minor, but it did not prevent him from encouraging him to buy his books which brought him income during interviews .. In my opinion it proves that it is a fraud.

ps.
I myself played in building, copying the engine of Adams, Bedini, because those devices at least had a real chance to work as an engine with better or worse efficiency, and the authors of ideas do not combine like Searl, everyone can build a copy and develop, check. This looks like a scam.

One of the first principles - "nullius in verba" (and in the fuller version "nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri") - was introduced by the Royal Society ( Royal Society ) in London (this is their motto), reportedly after experimenting to verify that the magic described in the book left behind by their founder does not work as the book describes it. And then, as far as possible, the requirement was introduced that the result of the experiment must be shown by the apparatus, not "by eye" - as it turned out, for example in the case of "N-rays", the eye can see what is not there.

But also the apparatus may not see what the mind sees. :-)

A simple example is black holes and black matter, it was calculated, but no one saw it and the apparatus did not reveal it, as did the Higgs bosons.
And these bosons can be simply, for example, photons with properties or energy other than we know.

Added after 10 [minutes]:

And as I mentioned about photons, there is something unnatural and unsupported science about them.
If the light is a wave, then it must be continuous, not disappear and appear whenever it wants to, in order to reach even our eye, because then we will see some strange phenomena or mirages, instead of the image they are supposed to convey.

saskia wrote:

But also the apparatus may not see what the mind sees.

Saskia, I feel the power of Jeday in you You watched the movie The man who stared at the goats? If not, be sure to watch it - put it in the oven (yes, regarding the mind).

saskia wrote:

And as I mentioned about photons, there is something unnatural and unsupported science about them.
If the light is a wave, then it must be continuous, not disappear and appear whenever it wants to, in order to reach even our eye, because then we will see some strange phenomena or mirages, instead of the image they are supposed to convey.

Maybe a colleague to develop it somehow? What is unsupported by science?
Well, we see "strange phenomena" a colleague sees them every time he watches a movie on TV, already at 24 frames / s a colleague is not able to distinguish individual frames.
So what is so mysterious about photons?

saskia, photons are bosons (on the other hand, no - not every boson is a photon, although the others are little known and difficult to observe); the effects of the existence of black holes (or similar objects - not so easy to determine what they are) are detected using apparatus, they are difficult to recognize with the naked eye.

Are the "black holes" not the center of gravity (barycenter) of the pairs of stars moving around? Because if so, then theoretically it is possible to generate both motion in any direction and local "disturbances" in the flow of time by means of two masses set in motion. Of course, everything according to the rules of the universe. Even the creators of "Kontakt" by Robert Zemeckis had the same combination ...
Łągiewka probably also ...
And the particle wavelength of electrons is easier to comprehend ...

No, they are not. Don't mix fantasy with reality - movies usually have fantasy.

jamtex wrote:

saskia wrote:

And as I mentioned about photons, there is something unnatural and unsupported science about them.
If the light is a wave, then it must be continuous, not disappear and appear whenever it wants to, in order to reach even our eye, because then we will see some strange phenomena or mirages, instead of the image they are supposed to convey.

Maybe a colleague to develop it somehow? What is unsupported by science?
Well, we see "strange phenomena" a colleague sees them every time he watches a movie on TV, already at 24 frames / s a colleague is not able to distinguish individual frames.
So what is so mysterious about photons?

If they disappear and reappear, the reappearance will not be the original image that the vanished ones carried.
If a part of it reaches the eye or even the telescope, it will be an image with a lot of missing pixels.

_jta_ wrote:

No, they are not. Don't mix fantasy with reality - movies usually have fantasy.

I don't mix, I just draw conclusions. And my hint about a gadget from the movie was just by the way. So don't make my whole statement sci-fi just because it was an interjection. Because neither the Łągiewka's propulsor, nor the corpuscular wavelength of electrons, nor the time disturbance in black holes is sci-fi.

JohnRing wrote:

I don't mix, I just draw conclusions. And my hint about a gadget from the movie was just by the way. So don't make my whole statement sci-fi just because it was an interjection. Because neither the Łągiewka's propulsor, nor the corpuscular wavelength of electrons, nor the time disturbance in black holes is sci-fi.

1. Łągiewka's propeller is SF
2. The corpuscular-wave life of electrons is absolutely science.
3. The curvature of space-time, according to OTW, occurs near bodies with mass. So both around the ground and a black hole, or in a black hole. In addition, the black hole is in its own event horizon and time is fading away on the outer surface of the black hole. And this way we come back to the SF movie "Horizon of Events" :)

How it all relates to the subject - God only knows

The Łągiewka propeller probably belongs to fantastic; perhaps your understanding of black holes and the corpuscular wavelength properties of electrons too - at least your statements do not show any real understanding.

There are many half-truths about free energy and sometimes they are just jokes. However, it can already be noticed that people like Mr. Łagiewka or Mr. Kluska and many others. Means people who tried to actually show something were torn to shreds. And all this because the tycoons want it to be so. So sometimes they produce videos themselves that are not true. I found a movie that shows how they do it and exposes the entire mechanism. The video is on yotube pt. Free Energy "Scams"

There are other topics about Mr. Łągiewka - this is how it is briefly known (and his company confirms it) that he gets millions to develop his ideas, and nothing is known for him to show something that was not known to us before - however to those who are interested in they do not know it, it may seem that he shows some new discoveries. Searl also gets money (although in a less legal way than Łągiewka), he also brings nothing new. So there are probably some scams here, and if the film shows them, let them tell you what they saw - please give details.

Why is everything discussed here, but not the construction of the searla generator, which is the main topic. There is only one way to achieve something in this topic and I already know what the way to achieve it must be.

There have already been many here who wrote that they know how to do it, and I have yet to see one who did it. So maybe I will quote an advice given by an elderly lecturer - this one made demonstrations at the lecture, announcing in advance what would happen, until the gentleman, who was among the audience, told him young man, let me give you some advice - it is much better to be a historian and tell what happened than to foretell things to come as a prophet .

I suspect that everything that could be written about the "Searl's generator" has already been written on our forum - in particular, everything that can be found about its construction has been described. For example, there is a much more extensive (but already closed) topic Free Energy, Searla's Free Energy-Generator - go through it and see if there is anything else to add - or maybe you can describe something more clearly?

Well, I just found this topic about Search, and there is indeed a lot to look at and a lot more concrete than here. This one should be deleted, because it does not contribute anything but only time is lost to look through it.
I did not mean that I know how to make this generator, because I have no idea about it at the moment, I just meant that I know what I have to do to give people a chance to effectively strive to construct such a generator or other magnetic motor, and whether there will be success at the end of this path is unknown.

This topic, due to the fact that it is active and still has a small volume, could be used to make a table of contents of what is in this broad (and closed) topic (and possibly elsewhere) - then the one who will be looking for information , he won't have to go through the whole thing, he'll just go through the table of contents and choose what he needs.

What do you think you have to do to give this a chance?

Then let's start discussing the construction of the searel generator from the inside. Do we know what should be in the middle of the generator? What dimensions should it have? what physical phenomena take place there etc? As we can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEFFK7mprTI in 1min5sec there are 4 ring-shaped layers. Which layer is what and what for? To make it easier to imagine what we are talking about, I present a picture of the generator center. So we have a ring 1-black 2-white 3-gray 4-gold. I suppose white is a magnet and gold is a copper plate. Somewhere there must be eddy currents, etc.