Hello all,

Be sure to tune-in tonight for another episode of UFO SkyWatch TV
broadcasting LIVE from the International UFO Congress held in Fountain
Hills Arizona. The show starts at 6:15PM PT (9:15PM ET):
http://UFOSkyWatch.com

The Radisson's wifi network seems to be working great for LIVE internet
broadcasting.

Bill

--
William S. Alek, Chief Director, President
PROGRESSIVE TECH CENTER, INC.
10645 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste C200-436
Phoenix, AZ 85028
PHONE: 602-626-8115
URL: http://progressivetechcenter.org/

If it's a "solvable problem" (decoupling a generator's input mechanical power
from its output electrical problem) then it's beyond hard -- nobody has ever
done so despite over a century of trying.

There are very good reasons for a generator's input power to be closely coupled
to its output power -- none of them bypassed by any means that have been
attempted or thought about. Nature very much abhors giving anything away.

More broadly, nobody has ever built ANY device (motor, system of levers, floats,
anything) where the power extractable from it was decoupled from the power it
consumes, despite thousands of years of trying.

But, if you really consider it "solvable" then we're all anxiously awaiting your
bringing that solution to our attention.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Vpr2064 <vpr2064@...> wrote:
>
> It's not that its impossible to have a generator supply the energy required to
run itself, its the using of a standard design motor and generator that makes
the statement from Gary true. Current generators, transformers and motors
require more input energy as the load increases and just because the current
standard is what is in use doesn't mean there isn't a better way. A term I hate
but applies, think outside the box.
>
>  
> Before you ask, no I don't have the answer either but see it as a solvable
problem. If I was interested in it I suppose I would start with why the current
draw on the generator determines the power required to turn it and explore a
design change that would eliminate or minimize that condition.
>  
> Vpr
>
> --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>
> Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity multiply itself
> To: "garys_2k" <garys_2k@...>, "free_energy@yahoogroups.com"
<free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 8:41 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> boy you sure know how to ruin a good high!!!!
>  
> LOL
>
>  
>
> Nemo dat quod non habet
>
>
>
>
>
> From: garys_2k <garys_2k@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:38 PM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity multiply itself
>
>
>
>  
>
> Interesting, I thought I'd invented that many years ago as a child. A motor
running a generator, just overdrive them with mismatched gears or pulleys and
you have perpetual motion! Why not?
>
> The "why not" is because the energy of motion, in this case the rotational
energy into the generator and out of the motor shafts, is not just a function of
how FAST they turn, but the amount of TORQUE (effort) as well.
>
> The power delivered by the motor is proportional to its speed, rpm multiplied
by its torque (Newton-meters, ft-lbs). Likewise, the power needed to turn the
generator is found by the speed it's rotating at multiplied by the torque, Nm or
ft-lb, needed to turn it.
>
> The whole problem is is that the generator will need more (speed X torque) to
turn than the motor can deliver. Losses in every part of the system (generator,
belt drive, motor and wires) will sap power from the device. The generator will
demand more speed and torque than the motor can deliver.
>
> Technically, this assembly is best described as a "dynamic brake." Unlike your
description, if left without any controls it will pretty quickly coast to a
stop.
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "joe" <one_christian_warrior@> wrote:
> >
> > Best Perpetual Motion machineţ
> > FW: self generating electricityţ
> > Gift from God
> >
> > Hello,
> ...
> >
> > http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> >
>

The only thing real about this is the exchange of forty-nine dollars from you to
whover you're buying these plans from. The motor itself won't work, no magnetic
motor has ever found to work.

Oh, and if anyone says that I'm too close minded, any REAL magnetic motor plans
would sell for way more than this. They'd be worth billions of dollars. IMHO
this is priced just high enough to be enticing but not so high that the average
person wouldn't just think about getting it.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
>
> For the group...
>
> --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
> Someone is selling plans for the Howard Johnson
> Generator with instructions
> for 49$. Is this generator authentic and real?
> Its a magnetic motor.
>
>  
> Steve
>

Just call me "Mr. Buzz Kill."

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
> boy you sure know how to ruin a good high!!!!
>  
> LOL
>
>
> Nemo dat quod non habet
>
>

This wasn't a power test, the motor was unloaded. As for the apparant speed
increase, the angle that the tachometer was held during the "test 3" sequence
could have been set to fool it into seeing more dark/light transitions per turn
than it had in the hand held "slow" mode. Why did the experimenter have to
suddenly fix the tachometer's location so precisely?

I smell BS. Videos of magnet motors and other such stuff are a dime a dozen on
Youtube. If they really worked the people making them would be millionaires.

  - Gary

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
>
> Also for the group...
>
> If you want to reply to the group make sure that, after you hit "Reply," that
the message goes to the group, not to the person that posted the message...
>
> --- On Thu, 2/23/12, John Smith <usa1_59102@> wrote:
>
>  
> OK, Mr Buzz Kill, Explain this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xv-req4U8U
>
>  
>
>
>
> From: garys_2k <garys_2k@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:01 PM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity multiply itself
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Just call me "Mr. Buzz Kill."
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> >
> > boy you sure know how to ruin a good high!!!!
> >  
> > LOL
> >
> >
> > Nemo dat quod non habet
> >
> >
>

save your money

 

Nemo dat quod non habet

From: Gary S. <garys_2k@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:56 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity multiply itself

 

For the group... --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote: Someone is selling plans for the Howard Johnson Generator with instructions for 49$. Is this generator authentic and real? Its a magnetic motor.   Steve

You should be saying no magnetic motor "Yet" is working, Maybe some day
?

Where is the proof for this claim?


Joy S

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Siedelmann <danielsiedelmann233@...>
wrote:
>
>
> In December 2011 the planet Uranus ignited and became a star.  When I point
this out to people I get the zombie blank stare.
>
> Jupiter and Saturn ignited and became stars on July 5, 1999. I was given the
time and date in advance so using an astronomy program I plotted where Jupiter
and Saturn would appear in my sky at the appointed time. I set my alarm clock
and got up to see that neither ignited before the appointed time and both
glowing brightly about 15 minutes later. I wish I had a camera capable of taking
pictures at night.
>
> Polaris is about to go hypernova in March. I believe March 26, 2012 is the
date if I got the correct data on the star.
>
> No more guiding star for zombies.
>

No, I'm just telling you that the scheme you think you dreamed up will not work.
"Traditional" thinking besides, it will either work or it won't. In this case it
won't -- unless you define "working" to mean no energy will come out of it.

The gadget you think is so brilliant has been in use for a VERY long time and is
called a "dynamic brake." Read about it here, but be warned: REAL thinking went
into this, not wishful dreaming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_brake

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Vpr2064 <vpr2064@...> wrote:
>
> I know this is a bit of a delayed response but this is the first I've had a
chance to reply.
>
> You're thinking within a traditional mindset with traditional
> equipment.
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/23/12, garys_2k <garys_2k@...> wrote:
>
> From: garys_2k <garys_2k@...>
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity multiply itself
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 23, 2012, 6:55 PM
>
> If it's a "solvable problem" (decoupling a generator's input mechanical power
from its output
>  electrical problem) then it's beyond hard -- nobody has ever done so despite
over a century of trying.
>
> There are very good reasons for a generator's input power to be closely
coupled to its output power -- none of them bypassed by any means that have been
attempted or thought about. Nature very much abhors giving anything away.
>
> More broadly, nobody has ever built ANY device (motor, system of levers,
floats, anything) where the power extractable from it was decoupled from the
power it consumes, despite thousands of years of trying.
>
> But, if you really consider it "solvable" then we're all anxiously awaiting
your bringing that solution to our attention.
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Vpr2064 <vpr2064@> wrote:
> >
> > It's not that its impossible to have a generator supply the energy required
to run itself,
>  its the using of a standard design motor and generator that makes the
statement from Gary true. Current generators, transformers and motors require
more input energy as the load increases and just because the current standard is
what is in use doesn't mean there isn't a better way. A term I hate but
applies, think outside the box.
> >
> >  
> > Before you ask, no I don't have the answer either but see it as a solvable
problem. If I was interested in it I suppose I would start with why the current
draw on the generator determines the power required to turn it and explore a
design change that would eliminate or minimize that condition.
> >  
> > Vpr
> >
> > --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@>
> > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity multiply itself
> > To:
>  "garys_2k" <garys_2k@>, "free_energy@yahoogroups.com"
<free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 8:41 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > boy you sure know how to ruin a good high!!!!
> >  
> > LOL
> >
> >  
> >
> > Nemo dat quod non habet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:38 PM
> > Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity multiply itself
> >
> >
>
> >
> >  
> >
> > Interesting, I thought I'd invented that many years ago as a child. A motor
running a generator, just overdrive them with mismatched gears or pulleys and
you have perpetual motion! Why not?
> >
> > The "why not" is because the energy of motion, in this case the rotational
energy into the generator and out of the motor shafts, is not just a function of
how FAST they turn, but the amount of TORQUE (effort) as well.
> >
> > The power delivered by the motor is proportional to its speed, rpm
multiplied by its torque (Newton-meters, ft-lbs). Likewise, the power needed to
turn the generator is found by the speed it's rotating at multiplied by the
torque, Nm or ft-lb, needed to turn it.
> >
> > The whole problem is is that the generator will need more (speed X torque)
to turn than the motor can deliver. Losses in every part of the system
(generator, belt drive, motor and wires) will sap
>  power from the device. The generator will demand more speed and torque than
the motor can deliver.
> >
> > Technically, this assembly is best described as a "dynamic brake." Unlike
your description, if left without any controls it will pretty quickly coast to a
stop.
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "joe" <one_christian_warrior@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Best Perpetual Motion machineţ
> > > FW: self generating electricityţ
> > > Gift from God
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > ...
> > >
> > > http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To drop of the list, send email to:
> free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links
>

For the group:

--- On Fri, 3/9/12, joe <one_christian_warrior> wrote:

> From: joe <one_christian_warrior>
> Subject: Re: let Electricity multiply itself
> Date: Friday, March 9, 2012, 2:11 AM
>
> There is a better diagram at
> http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> where i add all the relivant AC + DC info
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> "garys_2k" <garys_2k@...> wrote:
> >
> > No, I'm just telling you that the scheme you think you
> dreamed up will not work. "Traditional" thinking besides, it
> will either work or it won't. In this case it won't --
> unless you define "working" to mean no energy will come out
> of it.
> >
> > The gadget you think is so brilliant has been in use
> for a VERY long time and is called a "dynamic brake." Read
> about it here, but be warned: REAL thinking went into this,
> not wishful dreaming.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_brake
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> Vpr2064 <vpr2064@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know this is a bit of a delayed response but
> this is the first I've had a chance to reply.
> > >
> > > You're thinking within a traditional mindset with
> traditional
> > > equipment.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 2/23/12, garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> multiply itself
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Thursday, February 23, 2012, 6:55 PM
> > >
> > > If it's a "solvable problem" (decoupling a
> generator's input mechanical power from its output
> > >  electrical problem) then it's beyond hard --
> nobody has ever done so despite over a century of trying.
> > >
> > > There are very good reasons for a generator's
> input power to be closely coupled to its output power --
> none of them bypassed by any means that have been attempted
> or thought about. Nature very much abhors giving anything
> away.
> > >
> > > More broadly, nobody has ever built ANY device
> (motor, system of levers, floats, anything) where the power
> extractable from it was decoupled from the power it
> consumes, despite thousands of years of trying.
> > >
> > > But, if you really consider it "solvable" then
> we're all anxiously awaiting your bringing that solution to
> our attention.
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> Vpr2064 <vpr2064@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's not that its impossible to have a
> generator supply the energy required to run itself,
> > >  its the using of a standard design motor
> and generator that makes the statement from
> Gary true. Current generators, transformers and motors
> require more input energy as the load increases and just
> because the current standard is what is in use doesn't mean
> there isn't a better way. A term I hate but applies, think
> outside the box.
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Before you ask, no I don't have the answer
> either but see it as a solvable problem. If I was interested
> in it I suppose I would start with why the current draw on
> the generator determines the power required to turn it and
> explore a design change that would eliminate or minimize
> that condition.
> > > >  
> > > > Vpr
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Kirk McLoren
> <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@>
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: let
> Electricity multiply itself
> > > > To:
> > >  "garys_2k" <garys_2k@>, "free_energy@yahoogroups.com"
> <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 8:41 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > boy you sure know how to ruin a good
> high!!!!
> > > >  
> > > > LOL
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Nemo dat quod non habet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:38 PM
> > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> multiply itself
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Interesting, I thought I'd invented that many
> years ago as a child. A motor running a generator, just
> overdrive them with mismatched gears or pulleys and you have
> perpetual motion! Why not?
> > > >
> > > > The "why not" is because the energy of
> motion, in this case the rotational energy into the
> generator and out of the motor shafts, is not just a
> function of how FAST they turn, but the amount of TORQUE
> (effort) as well.
> > > >
> > > > The power delivered by the motor is
> proportional to its speed, rpm multiplied by its torque
> (Newton-meters, ft-lbs). Likewise, the power needed to turn
> the generator is found by the speed it's rotating at
> multiplied by the torque, Nm or ft-lb, needed to turn it.
> > > >
> > > > The whole problem is is that the generator
> will need more (speed X torque) to turn than the motor can
> deliver. Losses in every part of the system (generator, belt
> drive, motor and wires) will sap
> > >  power from the device. The generator will
> demand more speed and torque than the motor can deliver.
> > > >
> > > > Technically, this assembly is best described
> as a "dynamic brake." Unlike your description, if left
> without any controls it will pretty quickly coast to a
> stop.
> > > >
> > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> "joe" <one_christian_warrior@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Perpetual Motion machineţ
> > > > > FW: self generating electricityţ
> > > > > Gift from God
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > To drop of the list, send email to:
> > > free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>
>
>

Thanks, I looked at the diagram and understand its operation. The underlying
idea seems to be that spinning the AC generator faster than the DC motor is
turning will cause the generator to produce more power than the motor takes to
turn. Is that correct?

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
>
> For the group:
>
> --- On Fri, 3/9/12, joe <one_christian_warrior> wrote:
>
> > From: joe <one_christian_warrior>
> > Subject: Re: let Electricity multiply itself
> > Date: Friday, March 9, 2012, 2:11 AM
> >
> > There is a better diagram at
> > http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> > where i add all the relivant AC + DC info
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> > "garys_2k" <garys_2k@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I'm just telling you that the scheme you think you
> > dreamed up will not work. "Traditional" thinking besides, it
> > will either work or it won't. In this case it won't --
> > unless you define "working" to mean no energy will come out
> > of it.
> > >
> > > The gadget you think is so brilliant has been in use
> > for a VERY long time and is called a "dynamic brake." Read
> > about it here, but be warned: REAL thinking went into this,
> > not wishful dreaming.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_brake
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> > Vpr2064 <vpr2064@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a bit of a delayed response but
> > this is the first I've had a chance to reply.
> > > >
> > > > You're thinking within a traditional mindset with
> > traditional
> > > > equipment.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Thu, 2/23/12, garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> > multiply itself
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Thursday, February 23, 2012, 6:55 PM
> > > >
> > > > If it's a "solvable problem" (decoupling a
> > generator's input mechanical power from its output
> > > >  electrical problem) then it's beyond hard --
> > nobody has ever done so despite over a century of trying.
> > > >
> > > > There are very good reasons for a generator's
> > input power to be closely coupled to its output power --
> > none of them bypassed by any means that have been attempted
> > or thought about. Nature very much abhors giving anything
> > away.
> > > >
> > > > More broadly, nobody has ever built ANY device
> > (motor, system of levers, floats, anything) where the power
> > extractable from it was decoupled from the power it
> > consumes, despite thousands of years of trying.
> > > >
> > > > But, if you really consider it "solvable" then
> > we're all anxiously awaiting your bringing that solution to
> > our attention.
> > > >
> > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> > Vpr2064 <vpr2064@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not that its impossible to have a
> > generator supply the energy required to run itself,
> > > >  its the using of a standard design motor
> > and generator that makes the statement from
> > Gary true. Current generators, transformers and motors
> > require more input energy as the load increases and just
> > because the current standard is what is in use doesn't mean
> > there isn't a better way. A term I hate but applies, think
> > outside the box.
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Before you ask, no I don't have the answer
> > either but see it as a solvable problem. If I was interested
> > in it I suppose I would start with why the current draw on
> > the generator determines the power required to turn it and
> > explore a design change that would eliminate or minimize
> > that condition.
> > > > >  
> > > > > Vpr
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Kirk McLoren
> > <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: let
> > Electricity multiply itself
> > > > > To:
> > > >  "garys_2k" <garys_2k@>, "free_energy@yahoogroups.com"
> > <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 8:41 PM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > boy you sure know how to ruin a good
> > high!!!!
> > > > >  
> > > > > LOL
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > Nemo dat quod non habet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> > multiply itself
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting, I thought I'd invented that many
> > years ago as a child. A motor running a generator, just
> > overdrive them with mismatched gears or pulleys and you have
> > perpetual motion! Why not?
> > > > >
> > > > > The "why not" is because the energy of
> > motion, in this case the rotational energy into the
> > generator and out of the motor shafts, is not just a
> > function of how FAST they turn, but the amount of TORQUE
> > (effort) as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > The power delivered by the motor is
> > proportional to its speed, rpm multiplied by its torque
> > (Newton-meters, ft-lbs). Likewise, the power needed to turn
> > the generator is found by the speed it's rotating at
> > multiplied by the torque, Nm or ft-lb, needed to turn it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The whole problem is is that the generator
> > will need more (speed X torque) to turn than the motor can
> > deliver. Losses in every part of the system (generator, belt
> > drive, motor and wires) will sap
> > > >  power from the device. The generator will
> > demand more speed and torque than the motor can deliver.
> > > > >
> > > > > Technically, this assembly is best described
> > as a "dynamic brake." Unlike your description, if left
> > without any controls it will pretty quickly coast to a
> > stop.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> > "joe" <one_christian_warrior@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Perpetual Motion machineţ
> > > > > > FW: self generating electricityţ
> > > > > > Gift from God
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > To drop of the list, send email to:
> > > > free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Excellent post, Eric, and seems to show that Rossi was backed into a corner that
he wasn't able to squirm out of: either his device includes nuclear reactions,
or it doesn't. It's either/or, not neither/both. But, for some reason, I suspect
the true believers will figure out some way to keep the faith.

For the group...

--- On Sun, 3/11/12, joe <one_christian_warrior> wrote:

> From: joe <one_christian_warrior>
> Subject: Re: let Electricity multiply itself

> this energy multiplication system
> works,,,
> it does not work on electronics calculations
> it works on large speed differences
> between your input and your output motors
> this major multiplication of rpms is great enough
> to negate any loss due to friction losses
> because of the vast circumference difference
> between your input motor (extremely slow)
> and the output motor (extremely fast)
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ok, lets just keep talking about how this wont work
> never really even trying to build it, (it is too far fetched
> to believe)
> and let this blessing to mankind be missed
>
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> "garys_2k" <garys_2k@...> wrote:
> >
> > If it's a "solvable problem" (decoupling a generator's
> input mechanical power from its output electrical problem)
> then it's beyond hard -- nobody has ever done so despite
> over a century of trying.
> >
> > There are very good reasons for a generator's input
> power to be closely coupled to its output power -- none of
> them bypassed by any means that have been attempted or
> thought about. Nature very much abhors giving anything
> away.
> >
> > More broadly, nobody has ever built ANY device (motor,
> system of levers, floats, anything) where the power
> extractable from it was decoupled from the power it
> consumes, despite thousands of years of trying.
> >
> > But, if you really consider it "solvable" then we're
> all anxiously awaiting your bringing that solution to our
> attention.
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> Vpr2064 <vpr2064@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not that its impossible to have a generator
> supply the energy required to run itself, its the using of a
> standard design motor and generator that makes the
> statement from Gary true. Current generators,
> transformers and motors require more input energy as the
> load increases and just because the current standard is what
> is in use doesn't mean there isn't a better way. A term I
> hate but applies, think outside the box.
> > >
> > >  
> > > Before you ask, no I don't have the answer either
> but see it as a solvable problem. If I was interested in it
> I suppose I would start with why the current draw on the
> generator determines the power required to turn it and
> explore a design change that would eliminate or minimize
> that condition.
> > >  
> > > Vpr
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Kirk McLoren
> <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@>
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> multiply itself
> > > To: "garys_2k" <garys_2k@>, "free_energy@yahoogroups.com"
> <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 8:41 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > boy you sure know how to ruin a good high!!!!
> > >  
> > > LOL
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Nemo dat quod non habet
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:38 PM
> > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> multiply itself
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Interesting, I thought I'd invented that many
> years ago as a child. A motor running a generator, just
> overdrive them with mismatched gears or pulleys and you have
> perpetual motion! Why not?
> > >
> > > The "why not" is because the energy of motion, in
> this case the rotational energy into the generator and out
> of the motor shafts, is not just a function of how FAST they
> turn, but the amount of TORQUE (effort) as well.
> > >
> > > The power delivered by the motor is proportional
> to its speed, rpm multiplied by its torque (Newton-meters,
> ft-lbs). Likewise, the power needed to turn the generator is
> found by the speed it's rotating at multiplied by the
> torque, Nm or ft-lb, needed to turn it.
> > >
> > > The whole problem is is that the generator will
> need more (speed X torque) to turn than the motor can
> deliver. Losses in every part of the system (generator, belt
> drive, motor and wires) will sap power from the device. The
> generator will demand more speed and torque than the motor
> can deliver.
> > >
> > > Technically, this assembly is best described as a
> "dynamic brake." Unlike your description, if left without
> any controls it will pretty quickly coast to a stop.
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> "joe" <one_christian_warrior@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Best Perpetual Motion machineţ
> > > > FW: self generating electricityţ
> > > > Gift from God
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

Yes, I completely agree that the SPEED multiplication between the motor and
generator likely exceeds friction and other losses in the system, but the only
thing that counts is the product of the speed and torque of the motor and
generator. Do you know what I mean by that?

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
>
> For the group...
>
> --- On Sun, 3/11/12, joe <one_christian_warrior> wrote:
>
> > From: joe <one_christian_warrior>
> > Subject: Re: let Electricity multiply itself
>
> > this energy multiplication system
> > works,,,
> > it does not work on electronics calculations
> > it works on large speed differences
> > between your input and your output motors
> > this major multiplication of rpms is great enough
> > to negate any loss due to friction losses
> > because of the vast circumference difference
> > between your input motor (extremely slow)
> > and the output motor (extremely fast)
> > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> > ok, lets just keep talking about how this wont work
> > never really even trying to build it, (it is too far fetched
> > to believe)
> > and let this blessing to mankind be missed
> >
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> > "garys_2k" <garys_2k@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If it's a "solvable problem" (decoupling a generator's
> > input mechanical power from its output electrical problem)
> > then it's beyond hard -- nobody has ever done so despite
> > over a century of trying.
> > >
> > > There are very good reasons for a generator's input
> > power to be closely coupled to its output power -- none of
> > them bypassed by any means that have been attempted or
> > thought about. Nature very much abhors giving anything
> > away.
> > >
> > > More broadly, nobody has ever built ANY device (motor,
> > system of levers, floats, anything) where the power
> > extractable from it was decoupled from the power it
> > consumes, despite thousands of years of trying.
> > >
> > > But, if you really consider it "solvable" then we're
> > all anxiously awaiting your bringing that solution to our
> > attention.
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> > Vpr2064 <vpr2064@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's not that its impossible to have a generator
> > supply the energy required to run itself, its the using of a
> > standard design motor and generator that makes the
> > statement from Gary true. Current generators,
> > transformers and motors require more input energy as the
> > load increases and just because the current standard is what
> > is in use doesn't mean there isn't a better way. A term I
> > hate but applies, think outside the box.
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Before you ask, no I don't have the answer either
> > but see it as a solvable problem. If I was interested in it
> > I suppose I would start with why the current draw on the
> > generator determines the power required to turn it and
> > explore a design change that would eliminate or minimize
> > that condition.
> > > >  
> > > > Vpr
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 2/22/12, Kirk McLoren
> > <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@>
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> > multiply itself
> > > > To: "garys_2k" <garys_2k@>, "free_energy@yahoogroups.com"
> > <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 8:41 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > boy you sure know how to ruin a good high!!!!
> > > >  
> > > > LOL
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Nemo dat quod non habet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: garys_2k <garys_2k@>
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:38 PM
> > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: let Electricity
> > multiply itself
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Interesting, I thought I'd invented that many
> > years ago as a child. A motor running a generator, just
> > overdrive them with mismatched gears or pulleys and you have
> > perpetual motion! Why not?
> > > >
> > > > The "why not" is because the energy of motion, in
> > this case the rotational energy into the generator and out
> > of the motor shafts, is not just a function of how FAST they
> > turn, but the amount of TORQUE (effort) as well.
> > > >
> > > > The power delivered by the motor is proportional
> > to its speed, rpm multiplied by its torque (Newton-meters,
> > ft-lbs). Likewise, the power needed to turn the generator is
> > found by the speed it's rotating at multiplied by the
> > torque, Nm or ft-lb, needed to turn it.
> > > >
> > > > The whole problem is is that the generator will
> > need more (speed X torque) to turn than the motor can
> > deliver. Losses in every part of the system (generator, belt
> > drive, motor and wires) will sap power from the device. The
> > generator will demand more speed and torque than the motor
> > can deliver.
> > > >
> > > > Technically, this assembly is best described as a
> > "dynamic brake." Unlike your description, if left without
> > any controls it will pretty quickly coast to a stop.
> > > >
> > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com,
> > "joe" <one_christian_warrior@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Perpetual Motion machineţ
> > > > > FW: self generating electricityţ
> > > > > Gift from God
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://free-energy.yolasite.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

It does appear that Rossi has been proven to be a phoney.
  I followed him very closely hoping he was for real.
   I followed him along with Sterling Alan on Sterling's website and just
by sheer coincidence Rossi claims to have an E-Cat factory here in Miami
where I live and I tried to get to see it so I could confirm to the
World that it existed and work there but Rossi said no, So it became
clear no factory exists here.
  Miami has very little manufacturing and a factory even an automated one
making 1,000,000 units a year would have been reported on the TV news
etc, But nothing.

--------------------------------------
     T Lee Buyea - Editor in Chief
    Fla. News Service - Miami, Fl. USA
           New with Views
--------------------------------------