Hydroelectric idea of today:2007.06.01

hydroidea070601

To my beloved Christina Chan

Dear Christina Chan:

I am Euler, a social activist within the Humanist/Atheist circle(related to to the Bible Complain incident), now would like to openly declare my admiration of your beauty as a whole and propensity of endearment with you. I think we are the best match you can found in Hong Kong, not merely because I am a honor graduate from a US-University with a major close enough to Philosophy: Psychology, and the majority of my friends are living oversea so my English is much better than Chinese, but also we are both intelligent persons with a heart for Chinese. With the intelligences of both of us combined, there is nothing we can’t achieve in the world: Democratizing China, solving the energy crisis are just a few items in the list. If you want objective proof of my creativity, vigor and intelligence, just take a look at the entries of this blog and the other blog. How does it compare in quality to other narcissistic-exhibitionist who care only about themselves(like this one)? As you can see, these entries couldn’t be coming from anyone who has a lower level of education, nor someone read less than a thousand books(With libraries record in Hong Kong and USA as a proof ), nor anyone who is excellent in inventing(Again with proof in my email). I am confident that once you truly know what I am and what my plan is, you will not think of anyone else anyone.

Would you like to give yourself a chance to a walk in heaven? There is one chance in your life you can make a real difference not just in my mind, but for China and the world!

Love,
The Author of euletruthbible.wordpress.com

(Christina Chan, you can leave a message here, I would contact you at my own discretion. As you can see here, I have little trust in people.)

Parametric Power Conversion as a general Principle for electrical generation

In my notes on Overunity Research, Lawrence has ask the question on how does the Magnet able to increase the kinetic energy of itself by first magnetize the nearby metal, then attracted toward it. Where does the kinetic energy coming from? Moreover, in the end of the process, the strength of new magnetic field of metal and magnet is greater than original, where does the extra magnetic energy coming from?

The classic electromagnetic would answer this question by considering the energy gained throughout the whole process. Since it require energy to separate the metal and magnet, therefore energy is conserved in the sense which no net energy is gained in the process. It has, however, created the need to explain how is it possible to borrow kinetic energy in the process of attraction from the later process of separation. Does nature allow we borrow energy from the future? The same question in the case of attraction between charged object and metal, the metal is also borrowing energy from the future separation. Moreover, it is not necessary that the metal is separated from the attracted object in the future. A magnet could hinged on ceiling for years without falling down, what supply the gravitational potential energy in first place?

Another set of question which often ignored by Physicist is in the case of repulsion, what supplied the kinetic energy for the repulsed object to be separate? Clearly, the logic that eliminate the need to ask the source of energy no longer applied here. Physics has to answer the question of where this kinetic energy coming from, or through what mechanism that kinetic energy is produced.

My knowledge and understanding is probably inadequate for the process of answering this mystery, I could only lied down a tentative hypothesis of my own: My speculation is that through some special alignment of Magnetic/electrical mini-poles, it is possible that the totality of attraction/repulsion has created an effect of rotation on them. Thus the kinetic energy is coming from the rotational energy of individual mini-poles. Since it is the natural states that anything rotate, therefore the rotation of them thus provided an inexhaustible supply of kinetic energy.

One of the beautiful example of utilization of this kinetic energy for the generation of electricity is known as Parametric Power Conversion, which an iron core is attracted into an electromagnetic coil. The whole setup would then experience the unusual phenomena of negative inductive. I attempt here to formula a general principle for this classes of electrical generation, or energy extraction via attraction and repulsion of Electrical/Magnetic poles. Namely, Any electrical/Magnetic pole would first elicit energy from the electrically/magnetically neutral object in the area where electrical/magnetic flux is penetrable, possibly via the aforementioned mechanism. Then we can conveniently dream up any kind of mechanism to extract the kinetic energy gained.

For instant, we can imagine a simple Magnetic energy conversion device which attraction between coils and metal is converted into electrical energy. For instance, we could have two separate system, one made of metal and coils, another made of coils and magnet. The purpose of the coil in the later system is to attract the metal in the former system when it is magnetized. At the time of their attraction, the coil in the former system and the magnet in the later system is made to approach each other by design. If we connect any loading to the coil in the former system, that load would operate as kinetic energy from the attraction is converted into electrical energy. To end this iteration, we could end the attraction between the magnetized coil from the later system and the metal in the former system by stopped supplying the coil in the former system with electricity. After the coil in the later system is demagnetized, it is quite easy to manually separate the two system. We could then repeat the whole process to generate electricity from the attraction between coil and metal. The great theoretical question that classic electromagnetic would face is, does the total of energy conserved throughout the whole process? The answer is definitely not. Could we use the electrical energy generated in the process to maintain the operation of whole system? The answer is definitely yes.

If we look at the whole process in terms of energy loss and gained, some part of electrical energy is lost as electrical resistance in the magnetization of the coil. And the inductance of the coil no doubt borrowed some electrical energy in the building up of magnetic field in the coil in the later system. Then kinetic energy is gained as the metal is attracted toward the magnetized coil, which is then converted into electrical energy through Lenz’s Law in the coil of the former system. That is where ‘extra’ energy enter into the equation. As long as this extra energy is greater than the lost in coils as electrical resistance, the system could produce more electrical energy output than its input. We thus have a simple overunity generator.

We could similarly construct other OU generator by using any attraction mechanism between electrical/magnetic poles and electrical/magnetic neutral, then use any kinetic-electrical energy conversion mechanism we could imagine. The key is that the attraction mechanism would be reversible, i.e. the coil could be separated from the metal, so we could repeat the whole process. The inexhaustible source of energy is there in the nature for thousands of years. Physics couldn’t understand it adequately doesn’t mean that we couldn’t use it at all. In the end of the day, we never took Psychology class before we become human!

Energy crisis and Physics

 Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 6:25 PM

The reason we have energy crisis is that we produce our energy on an inherent self-collapsing process(Lenz’s Law) but not an inherently self-reinforcing mechanism(PMM?). If nature is symmetric, it follow that if there is a self-depreciate process there must exist a mirror process of self-reinforcing(expansion). The problem is to identify the later process.

A hypothesis on the Overunity Electromagnetic experiment

This discussion refer to the experiment proposed and done here. That maybe a pretty stupid idea to explain the source of extra electromagnetic energy. My thought is actually pretty simple: Suppose we display the oscillation with an oscillator, then we adjust the time-base to a greater number. The wave-like display is distorted in such a way which amplitude has increase while period is reduced when compare to original.
So my hypothesis is that the presence of strong magnetic field has distort the flow of time in the transformer, resulted an accelerated flow of time in the electrical current inside the transformer coil. Thus, relative to these who are outside the strong magnetic field, the electrical current has been amplified. The extra energy is coming from the difference of amplitude in oscillation due to the compression of time by the magnetic field by the magnet. In other words, we are using time as energy.

Possible explanation for energy from gravity?

Mon, Apr 4, 2005 at 3:04 AM

(The discussion below Refer to the energy project I involved, search for ‘All about the energy project’ in this blog.)

One critical problem I have forgot all along is the timing of electrical, magnetic and gravity force. Does it require time for a mass to react to another object’s gravity field? If I remember accurately, it require some time for E-M field to reach an object react to E-M field. If we could found out what time it take for such an reaction to happen, we could win a second Nobel prize.
In here, I would assume here gravity does NOT take any time to ‘travel’ from an object to another object. My hypothesis is that when kinetic energy is transfer to become electrical energy, there is a momentarily slow down of the swing. However, at the same time, the tension in the metal react to this slowing down and provide upward force require to counter gravity. And as kinetic energy is transfer to electrical energy at the same time, the tension(or construction energy) is drawn once again to support the momentum of moving upward. Then it reach the maximum it is possible to attain. This should be the place where potential energy is equal to kinetic energy plus the construction energy we exert through the circular motion.
As it begin to swing downward, the gravity is acting against the tension to push the swing downward. However, with the addition of tension resulted in a clockwise circular motion toward the point of equilibrium. Now gravity is accelerating the swing, which cutting through the magnetic lines. In that process, the kinetic energy is transfer to electrical energy. Then there should a momentarily slowing decrease of acceleration of the swing. However, as soon as the gravity ‘discover’ that swing is not accelerate(instantly) proportional to its mass(or some atoms in the swing felt that gravity is temporarily losing contact with it), a process is initialized to ‘fill-in-the-gap’ of that lose acceleration. Actually, it maybe the tension(incompressibility) of the metal first ‘detect’ this lost of gravity, therefore it react by pushing the swing outward. Therefore, I suppose that there maybe a continuously fluctuation of the acceleration and the speed of the swing that is detectable by VERY SENSITIVE equipment (provide that the equipment itself does NOT distort the parameter it want to measure). This delicate balance of gain and loss take place until the swing has reach its equilibrium point, which the accumulate enough energy to miss it. The same thing repeat itself on the other side.
Now I have two hypothesis:
1. Either the atom in the metal swing or Earth’s atom ‘detect’ and REACT to the reduction of gravity due to ‘lose’;
2. The Tension of the metal first react to the lose of gravity, and since it can’t be compress, it react by providing an impulse to push the swing object outward and downward;
3. Some complex interaction between Tension and Gravity.

Keep going this way, we are digging into the quantum reality of gravity. My general direction is by taking the microscopic picture of what really happen at each moment of the metal and swing. However, all is hypothesis without an experiment to test it, which is the first experiment I will do after the company laboratory is created. Seriously, if any of us could found an accurate description of this phenomena that is proven by experiment, the Nobel Prize of Physics within our reach. I guess you wouldn’t mind sharing a part of it to help patent my invention

Conservation of energy in swinging of pendulum?

Sat, May 14, 2005 at 3:03 PM

This is yet another discovery I made in the process of making a
G.E.G. All copyright reserved by me.
We all learn from the physics textbook that energy is conserved in
any situation. An excellent example would be a falling object: At any
moment of its descending, the sum total of its kinetic energy and
potential energy should be equal. This does not bother my intellect at
all. What I found interesting is the energy exchange of the case of
swinging or rotational motion. Does they obtain the same law of
conservation of energy as the case of falling object?
The reason I think why falling object is chosen for textbook
example is because of the linearity of the motion. During the whole
trajectory, the velocity remain on the same straight line as the
acceleration as well as the line which we calculate the level of
potential energy. Now consider the case of swinging object. As we
apply a pulse force to distrub the equilibrium, what the object
respond is by displacement in two dimension. Due to the restraint of a
rope, the object must SWING instead of moving in a plane parallel to
the ground. It is easy to see that as the object is swinging, it should
have its own set of angular momentum, angular velocity and rotational
energy. Although the conventional calculation require us to calculate
the velocity at different height, in what sense does these velocity
meant? Since the object is moving in a circular trajectory, it follows
that the object is changing its direction of movement in every
moment(with centipendal acceleration). So if that velocity have any
meaning, it should refer to the instantaneous velocity in the direction
of its movement. However, as far as I understand the teaching of
Physics, it doesn’t appear that velocity refer to the velocity at the
direction of its movement. It is most situably refer to the direction
of the vertical component of the movement since it is linear.(How
meaningful/useful is this calculation is another matter.) Moreover,
any conservation of energy formula would require a condition that NO
external force is acting on the system. This condition is VIOLATED
since a varying tension of the rope is CONTINUOUSLY acting on the
system to neutralize/reduce or even overcome the gravity. It would be
a better analogy to consider this system as an object is continuously
acting by a fixed and a variable force in the opposition direction.
Now, taken these considerations into account. The following
conclusion is of a closer description of reality: At any moment, the
sum of Rotational Kinetic Energy, Work done by the centripetal force
and gravitational Potential energy should be a constant. We can apply
this formula into calculate the exact Angular Velocity of the object,
then use sine and cosine of its value to obtain the vertical and
horizontal velocity of this object.

Energy from atomspheric pressure

Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 1:32 PM

This is yet another thought experiment for me to demonstrate the
inherited problem of the law of conservation of energy.
Suppose we have a reversed bottle on top of liquid surface that is
connected to a vacuum pump. The liquid surface area is assume to be
infinite, and it is exposed to atmospheric pressure except the area
covered by the bottle. As we pump out the air of the bottle, the
atmospheric pressure would rush the water into the bottle. Then we
open air on the top of bottle(which require no energy for this
process). Presumably the air would rush it, and the liquid level would
drop immediately to the level of liquid outside.
What if we setup a turbine on the route of water flow? Now the
liquid would turn the leaves of the turbine twice in a cycle: First
when the liquid is flowing upward, and the liquid is flowing downward.
We could have set up an electric brush that would adjust according to
the flow of liquid. Now then we will have an always positive flow of
electrical currency and store the energy to do useful work like
pumping the air out.
Would the output equal to the input in this case?(Assume ideal case
with no friction)
(A)The energy supplied by the pump during the air-out process=
volume* density of air* height of bottle,
(LD)The energy provided by the downward flow of liquid= volume*
density of liquid* height of the bottle
(LU)The energy provided by the upward flow of liquid= volume*
density of liquid* height of the bottle

Energy input=A= volume of air* density of air* height of bottle
Energy output=LD+LU= 2 *volume of liquid *density of liquid *height of bottle

Now the volume of air is identical to volume of liquid and height of
the bottle is same for both. However, that the density of liquid is
obvious higher than density of air. Thus we would have the Energy
output is more than input by the difference: (difference of density
between the liquid and air+ density of liquid)* volume* height of the
bottle.
If the amount of energy is completely converted into electrical
energy, the amount is more than enough to provide for the pump. How
would law of conservation of energy account for this?

Where do we get the extra energy from? In the surface it is the
energy from air(Atmospheric Pressure), upon further investigation we
discover we are actually extracting the energy from gravity and
thermal energy of the air. Now consider what would happen if we put a
APG on the upper opening of the bottle?

Cosmic energy discussion 12.30

cosmicenergy1230.pdf

Cosmic energy discussion 12.29

cosmicenergy1229.pdf