Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

141 views
UNDERGROUNDLEAKS > Free Energy (aka Energy Conversion)

Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 14, 2018 12:39AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Canadian scientific researcher Grant Hayman (who some of you may recall I previously interviewed in the 4th episode of the Underground Knowledge podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZO3A... ) is sending me ongoing correspondence between himself and a couple of other scientists... Correspondence that reveals what he believes to be the way to create free energy technologies for humanity.

Grant indicated some of this is potentially sensitive info, but that he's at a stage in his life where he is "not so worried about repercussions"...He also says his "intention is to release, in every sense, a complete and detailed guide to prove the existence of a "Free" source of energy. Not just theory, but instructions and practices with which anyone can reproduce it."

If anyone wishes to contact Grant directly, for any reason including asking for the papers/documents he mentions as attachments in the email correspondence, he can be reached via his website: http://www.ovaltech.ca/

We will keep this thread closed to comments until the correspondence gets further along so that when people read this thread later they'll see it all neatly together. But eventually this thread will be opened up for comments.

(UPDATED Aug 12, 2018: This thread is now open for comments)


message 2: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 11, 2018 07:59PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #1:

Let me take the time to discuss Free Energy with you personally. You
will gain much more knowledge than reading my website.

First, Energy is not Free. There must always be a source of energy,
it cannot come from nothing. You can immediately determine whether
claims of "Free Energy" are fake or tricks, by understanding this. It
is for this reason, I do not call the concept "Free Energy", it is
much better to call this "Energy from the Environment" or "Energy from
Space"

Realize to get usable energy, we need to have a polarity or difference
in potential between two locations. In a battery we have different
potential between two metals separate by electrolyte. For combustion
engine, we have difference in temperature between explosion of gas and
cool air outside the engine. This difference in potential is what
allows energy to perform work.

You can easily see a vast difference in potential between the Hot Core
of the Earth and the Cold emptiness of Space surrounding the Earth.
This is where your "Free Energy" must come from. We have hot Earth on
ground and very cold in Space, this is a source of unlimited potential
energy. This huge amount of energy exists, but the question is how do
we extract the usable energy?

Nikola Tesla said, "Image a gigantic thermopile, which could reach
from deep inside the Earth out into Space around the Earth".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile The thermopile as I stated
earlier, depends on a temperature gradient, or difference in
temperature between two places. Such a giant thermopile as Tesla
described, would produce real energy from the environment, Energy
which uses no resources. The concept is scientifically sound, not
fantasy.

quote "Imagine a thermopile consisting of a number of bars of metal
extending from the earth to the outer space beyond the atmosphere. The
heat from below, conducted upward along these metal bars, would cool
the earth or the sea or the air, according to the location of the
lower parts of the bars, and the result, as is well known, would be an
electric current circulating in these bars. The two terminals of the
thermopile could now be joined through an electric motor and,
theoretically, this motor would run on and on, until the medium below
would be cooled down to the temperature of outer space. "
-Nikola Tesla

Now Tesla elaborates further on this concept. Tesla states, quote
"But was it not possible to realize a similar condition without
necessarily going to a height?: - Nikola Tesla
So you see, we most assuredly do not need to build a "gigantic
thermopile" which reaches hundreds of kilometers into space. The
point is, this source of energy is real. We have our source of
energy, so now the problem becomes "What other methods exist to
extract this energy?"

Understand, there is not only a large temperature difference between
the Earth and Outer Space, but there is a large electrical difference
between the Earth and Outer Space. This is a static electric field of
sorts. Not a dynamic field like a lighting discharge, or electricity
flowing in a wire. Think of this more like the pressure inside a
balloon or a ball. The static electric charge of the Earth,
fluctuates like the balloon rapidly inflating and deflating a little
bit, over and over again. Like some air goes in, then air is let out,
then air goes in. The Earth electrical vibrates like this. It is
this static electric vibration, of which we understand very little,
which is related to Gravity and can be a source of electrical energy
without using resources. This electric field is as real as the
temperature difference between the hot dense molten core of the Earth
and the cold vacuum emptiness of outer space. In fact the electric
effect is what came before the matter of the Earth was even formed!
http://electricity-automation.com/en/...

Tesla's solution was to build a giant Tesla coil, which could "hammer"
the Earth with powerful electric energy, causing the whole surface of
the Earth, to vibrate with electrical power. Anyone, anywhere on the
planet could tap into these electrical vibrations. It was "World
Wireless" transmission of power. The Earth was one giant wire, like a
giant metal sphere. So Tesla's power station could send power
anywhere on Earth, with no wires. Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower, was not
a "Radio" Transmitter, it did not send energy into the air. Tesla's
Wardenclyffe tower, sent electrical energy, into the ground, into the
Earth. The air was the return path. This is the opposite of how we
transmit power today, with wires above the ground, and the ground as
the return path.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_... They are wrong
about the Earth being an infinite sink for power.

This technology would have greatly empowered mankind, much more than
the grid system we have today. You could have got power in the middle
of the desert, in the arctic, in the middle of the ocean, then use
that power to extract water, power lights for plants and gardens and
water pumps, heat your home. A fantastic and brilliant idea, but I am
going off topic as we are discussing "Free" energy.

When Tesla was experimenting with smaller version of his Wardenclyffe
tower, he discovered something very amazing.
He did not need to hammer the Earth with electrical power and make it
vibrate, the Earth was ALREADY vibrating with electrical power! Do
you see the connection now? His tower could tap into the natural
electrical energy coming from the difference between Earth and Space.
He did not have to build his tower all the way into the sky, he was
able to tap this energy with only a few hundred foot tower and a huge
underground connection to the Earth. Again, the concept is not
fantasy, but very real.

Now, I circle back in my discussion, all the way back to our original
discussion of the "Townsend Battery". This device is base on the
concept of the "electret" which is a dielectric insulator with two
metal plates on either side, like a capacitor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret

To create an electret, you have the dielectric insulator in a molten
state, such as liquid wax between your two metal plates or sheets.
You apply a high voltage across the plates and then let the dielectric
insulator cool until it is a solid. Then you can remove the high
voltage. The electret will retain the static electric charge! Just
like a magnet retains the magnetic field. The electret will store the
static electric charge for an indefinite time. Understand though, the
electret is not a battery. You cannot connect wires to an electret
and get power, like from a battery. It is static electric power, not
dynamic.

What Townsend did, is modify the electret by putting some metal powder
or metal oxide, especially heavy metal oxides, into the insulator when
it was molten. Not so much powder so it would conduct, it was still
an insulator, but this metal powder changed how the electret worked.
Doping the electret like this, made it like a battery, so you could
get some power from it! This is a remarkable discover, and relates
right back to everything I have discussed thus far. This simple
little device, the doped electret, provided a small device which could
tap into the natural static electric vibration around the Earth! So
we have a simple device which can produce "Free Energy" and we
understand its method and the source of its power. No magic, no lies,
no gimicks. A simple, cheap, easily constructed device which can
produce electrical power from the environment.

The reason this simple device can tap this energy, is due to the
conducting powder embeded inside the insulator. Think of this like
the tiny metal specks can vibrate with the natural electrical
vibrations, and because they are within a static electric field, when
they snap back or return to their positions, they release a tiny
amount of real electrical power. Atoms in an electric field, are
under stress. They are stretched out into an egg shape, not round
like a ball. This stress changes and shifts. When you have this
combination of insulating non conducting atoms under electrical
stress, intermixed with conducting metal atoms which can conduct away
or release this stress, then there exists a possibility to release
static electric stress, into real dynamic electrical energy.

Of course, this is not quite so simple. If someone such as yourself
[redacted], really wanted to prove this and make it real, this would
require not much money, but much effort and dedication. You would
need to build hundreds, maybe thousands of little doped electrets,
testing various metal powders, various oxides of metal, various types
of waxes and dielectric materials, various quantities of doping,
various powers of charging the electret, various sizes of electret and
so on and so on. However, the results will be immediate, they will be
real, they will be verifiable and you can do this on a small scale,
with little money. Just like Thomas Edison trying hundreds of
different filaments for his light bulb until he discovered the
tungsten wire was what would make the "light bulb" a reality.
Similarly this Townsend Battery is real and only requires the trial
and error to determine how to make it most efficient.

The science is real, the source is real, the method is real, but who
has the motivation and commitment to DO IT? I did not, but I do
understand it and try to explain it to others in the hope someone
succeeds.

Do not waste your time with magic and complex "free energy"
charlatans. I have laid out everything you need to know in this
email. The more research you do into all the subjects I mention here,
the more you will see the truth of what I say. I can try to explain
more and help as much as I can. I have much more documents and
information on the subject than could be sent in one email.

Best of luck.

Grant


message 3: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #2:

I apologize for the delay in sending you more information. I have a
tremendous amount of information on these subjects archived, but not
always in a state which is readily accessible to others. It will take
me much more time to compile the information and provide you links to
it. However, I have some information I will link today to give you an
idea of what I will be providing in the future.

For starters here is a link to my archive on Electrets. This is a
direct download link to a zip file containing numerous, in depth
documents discussing Electret and a Video of someone who makes and
electret. The web site is another domain I own, with no blocks on it.
If you have trouble downloading these files, just let me know and I
can provide alternate means to get the files.


http://alienhosting.ca/Download/Makin...
http://alienhosting.ca/Download/How_t...


If you cannot watch the video, I recommend downloading Media Player
Classic https://mpc-hc.org/

These documents detail everything you need to know to build an
Electret. I would start with building a normal electret to confirm
your process works. Once you can build a normal Elecret, only then
should you start experimenting with "Doped" Elecrets.

"Doping" is the process of including small quantities of an additional
substance into your Electret insulator mixture ( usually wax ). To
extract energy from an Electret, all you need to do is dope it with
some Heavy Metal Oxide powders, or even powdered Granite or Basalts.
I will provide more information on this "Doping" process once I finish
compiling my Archive of Thomas Townsend Brown's work for you. It is
this doping process which alters the characteristics of a static
electric electret, to an Elecret which can provide dynamic electric
power.

Let me clarify the difference between a static charge and dynamic
current, just so I know you understand the difference.
A static electric charge, is like pressure inside a balloon. There is
what is called a potential energy there, but the energy is in a static
state. A balloon in and of itself can do no work, provides no motion
or effect on its environment.
A dynamic electric current, is like when we release the air from the
balloon. At this point the air pressure is converted to a flow of
air, which we can feel, or which can propel the balloon, can move the
balloon, imparting motion.
Potential Energy, can do no work. We must convert the potential
energy of the electret to some usable form, kinetic energy or dynamic
electrical current.

Let me further explain Electric Current and Voltage, so moving forward
you have a solid fundamental understanding of these concepts.
Low Voltage and Low Current is like a drip from a water tap. There is
very low pressure and very little flow of water.
High Voltage and Low Current is like a squirt gun or shooting a stream
of water. There is high pressure but not very much water, low rate of
flow.
Low Voltage and High Current is like a slow moving river. There is
low slow movement, but a very high volume of moving water a high large
amount of flow.
The last is High Voltage and High Current. This is like a giant
waterfall. We have a large volume of water moving and a very high
speed or high pressure of that water movement.

Furthmore, electrical power can have a frequency or oscillation of
flow. This is a very important concept of which I do not have time to
elaborate upon today.

In investigating Electret on the internet, it has come to my attention
there is most definitely an effort to suppress and cover up such
information as I am providing you. There is much disinformation and
misdirection concerning the use of Elecret as a source of energy. Do
not be distracted by method which use an Electret in a more complex
device, or connect wires or cables or coils to elecret as part of the
device. Such complications are completely unnecessary. It is the
Doped Elecret itself upon which you should focus all efforts.

Thus in this regard, I will continue to provide you with information
on this subject on condition you keep me advised of your successes and
failures. In my mind, there is absolutely no point in giving you this
information if you choose to keep your results secret or try to patent
or control the results for monetary gain. I am attempting to explain
this information, because our world needs this information, not to
make you famous or rich. The value in this information is in its
potential to change the world. This information can allow you to
prove, the scarcity of energy is a myth used to control people.

Let me know if you cannot access the downloads.

Thanks,
Grant


message 4: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #3:

[Attachment stripped: Original attachment type: "application/pdf", name: "Structure of Space (handwrittent) ttbrown-J5-2strspace.pdf"]

I have completed transcribing the hand written paper, "The Structure
of Space" by Thomas Townsend Brown. I have attached the original as
well as the word doc and a pdf. Please let me know if you do not
receive the attachments.

At this point I would like to discuss various factors which interest
me about this paper. I do not know anyone other than yourself, [redacted], who would grasp the significance and importance of these
realizations.

Of most importance when I read this paper, are the repeated references
to actual physical experiments, either previously performed or as of
yet to be performed. This in and of itself stands out to me, as I
have read hundreds if not thousands of theoretical papers and yet can
count on one hand the number which have outlined real physical
experimentation to prove and demonstrate the reality of the theories
within. Thomas Townsend Brown saw real physical evidence of these
concepts in his experiments, and sought to describe a theory which
best explained the results. His theory is far reaching and very well
thought out.

There are numerous concepts within his paper which are of interest to
me and it is difficult to narrow down a discussion to only a select
few of these points.

Of specific interest are the following points:

1. Gravity is the first derivative of electric field. That is
gravitational force is directly related to the K and magnetic
permeability of space.

2. Electrons cannot exist is empty extra-galactic space. Positrons
cannot exist in the most dense mass within Stars.

3. Perhaps one could call such space a "completely negatively charged
continuum.

Mr. Brown uses the concept of "Empty Space" or uses the term
"Extra-Galactic" space and ascribes a High Potential Space Pressure to
such space. So the Gravity becomes a force due to Empty Space.
Although this seems counter to our current understanding of "mass" or
"matter" as being something physical, we consider matter solid and
real, there is much evidence which points to the contrary. The
reality is more that matter is a swirl in the cosmic sea, a vortex in
space, and like all vortices within their center is a "low Pressure"
or void. Mass is a void or hole in space due to rotation or torsion
in space.

Since you are interested in the Zero Point Energy, we can relate such
a concept to this Energy in Space. The empty space, is the source of
all energy and represents the highest potential, not the lowest. This
is the great misunderstanding of the Zero Point Energy. The point is,
it is not Zero it is Infinite! Reversing the concept, leads to
tremendous insight into the source of this Energy and how it interacts
with mass and Gravity. This concept reinforces the notion that there
is no energy inherent within mass, the energy in mass is due to the
environment of space surrounding that mass.

The simple analogy is the "hot air balloon". We use the rocket engine
to propel a mass against the force of gravity, using a great
expenditure of energy, mechanical force and reaction, stored in
volatile fuels within our rocket. However, the hot air balloon once
filled with hot air, had no real energy or mechanical force or
reaction within itself to counter the force of gravity. It is the
surrounding pressure of the cool air, which forces the less dense hot
air within the balloon, upwards to a new position of equilibrium. The
energy to counter the gravitational force, comes from outside the hot
air balloon.

Similarly the force of gravity upon a mass, comes from outside the
mass, not from within it.

Thus like a hot air balloon, if we control the space surrounding a
mass, with powerful static electric fields, we can reverse the force
of gravity. By imparting great electrical stress upon matter, we
induce motion directly, rather than through mechanical means such as
collision or reaction.

Consider this thought experiment [redacted]:
We have two atoms of some element. One in motion, one not in motion (
relative to some point ). We say the one in motion has "kinetic
energy", "momentum" and "velocity", whereas the other does not.
Wherein is this difference?
If we "froze" both atoms in time, and examined their fields and
structure in great detail could we tell which atom is in motion and
which is not. Is an atom in motion physically identical to an atom
which is not? I would say the evidence suggest there is a difference.
The atom in motion stores its momentum, this kinetic energy, within
the fields which define it. Since such fields are primarily
"electromagnetic" in nature, being an atom is protons and electrons,
then this kinetic energy must be stored in distortion of the atom's
electromagnetic field. The most simple example of this is as an
increase in the electrical dipole of the atomic electric field:
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics/dielec...

This is confirmed by Einstein's famous equation for the energy
contained in mass, as the units of this "energy" are for "kinetic
energy". All energy within mass, is kinetic energy, or energy due to
motion. For in our thought experiment, we must realize there is truly
no such thing as mass which is not truly in motion. Even mass not in
motion relative to some point, such as in an experiment on the surface
of the Earth, is still in motion relative to some other point, such as
the Sun or Galactic center.

Furthermore, one must realize there is not really such a concept as
"static" electric field, for what may be a static electric field upon
the surface of the Earth, is too in motion relative to some other
point. Thus static electric and static magnetic fields are only
illusions of static field. In the Universe, something truly static
would cease to exist. It is the motion, which defines the existence
of something real in our Universe.

This points to a gross error in understanding of the motion of planets
both in rotation and their orbital paths. It is completely wrong to
state the Earth rotates because it was set in motion some time ago and
continues to rotate because there is no forces acting to oppose the
rotation. It is likewise completely wrong to say the Earth or any
object orbits another body due to velocity imparted by some unknown
forces long ago, and such motion continues because there is no forces
to oppose this motion in outer space. Such concepts should be
relegated to history.

The Earth rotates and orbits, because this is what the forces in space
surrounding these bodies dictate. They are following paths of
equilibrium and balance, where the motion is required and defined. Do
you see?

Consider this statement I have oft repeated, which is quoted from Mr.
Einstein:
"Now, but only now, we know that the force which moves electrons in
their ellipses about the nuclei of atoms is the same force which moves
our Earth in its annual course about the sun and is the same force
which brings to us the rays of light and heat which make life possible
on this planet"-Albert Einstein
He is not describing gravitational force nor electromagnetic force in
this statement.

I must elaborate on one more concept. When Mr. Thomas Townsend Brown
was experimenting with his charged electrets and highly charged
"gravitor" apparatus, he noticed there was a variation in the forces
and effects which was not terrestrial in its source. This is possibly
the most oft overlooked feature of Mr. Brown's research. Realize that
Thomas Townsend Brown was able to determine the direction of the
Galactic center, using measurements upon a charge electret's field.
Such experimentation can be readily reproduced with minimal expenditure.

The whole point of my discussion [redacted], is many researches today
seem to be grossly over complicating the investigation. The problem
seems to be, some of our most basic underlying foundations in science
were based on incorrect assumptions and are in error. When an effort
is made to describe something, such as the force of gravitation, based
on such an unstable foundation, then complexity and confusion will
inevitably result.

I was told once, in order to truly understand the Universe I had to at
first unlearn everything I though I knew.
There is great truth in such a method. What is most beautiful about
science, is its ability to correct itself. However, today much money
is spent to maintain a dogma of science, and so many personal ego's
depend upon maintaining this illusion of scientific understanding, it
would be difficult if not impossible to rewrite the foundation.

However, all is not lost. For I care not whether some modern
scientist can use his theories to explain the action of an
experimental result. The fact remains, the result is real and cares
not whether the result can be understood in terms of some scientific
theory or another.

But enough words for now. I hope you enjoy the paper [redacted].

Thanks,
Grant


message 5: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #4:

I am still working on compiling some further information for you, but
need to send you more information on the "doping" process of which I
have spoken previously. This is the "key" to altering a normal
electret, to produce usable power rather than just a static electric
field. It is my concern you understand this most critical key to the
process, in case for some reason our communication is broken. Please
let me know you received this email.

I use the term "doped electret" and want to clarify exactly what this
means and how to produce such an electret.

First, "doping" is a term applied to the production of semiconductors
in the electronic industry. The basic idea is thus:
A substance which is normally "non-conducting", does not conduct
electricity, is "doped" with a different element or material, which
changes the properties of the substance so that it partially conducts
electricity or is a semi-conductor. I will not get into semiconductor
production and properties here as the semiconductor process is not
likely transferable to the production of a "doped" electret.

However, we have a similar situation with the electret. We have a
material, a wax mixture of some kind usually, which is an insulator or
non-conductor, which we want to make a conductor for a very specific
case. So the concept is very similar to that of doping in
semiconductors, but we have different materials and goals in mind.
Thus I feel the term "doping" is appropriate to this case.

Now very simplified, the process in making a "doped" electret involves
adding some other substance to the dielectric medium( usually a wax
mixture ) of the electret. In the case of Townsend Brown's work, he
found heavy metal oxides seems to provide the greatest effects. An
example of such a heavy metal oxide is Lead Oxide( PbO ):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II...
Some other examples would be Tungsten Oxide, Iron Oxide ( rust ) etc
etc. A full list can be found here:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...
Which of these metal oxides proves to be the most effective at
producing power will require experimentation, but I would strongly
suggest starting with the same metal oxides Townsend Brown had success
with.

Now the reason for using "heavy metal oxides" is as follows:
1. the "heaviness" or mass of the oxide contributes to the magnitude
of the effect
2. the "metal" provides a conductive property

So we are in a sense altering a normal electret, to increase the
weight of the dielectric in the electret and also the conductive
properties of the insulator, in a sense modifying the electret to be a
semiconducting electret rather than a normal electret. However,
unlike a normal semiconductor which is combined with other
semiconductors to control and manipulate the flow of electricity for
electronic devices and computing, this semiconducting electret allows
us to convert a "penetrating, broad spectrum ambient flux" which
exists throughout the Universe, into a unidirectional flow of
electrical current.

I will provide much more information on this "ambient flux" and its
nature in the near future so you may better understand its source and
composition, but for now will continue with the practical construction
of the "doped" electret. The important point here is the "mass" of
the doping material plays a role in this conversion process, as you
can think of this ambient flux very loosely as a "gravitational" type
of field. Higher mass being directly related to higher gravitational
effect or possessing a greater gravitational field.

Another import consideration in maximizing the effect within a doped
electret, as suggested by Townsend Brown, is for the doping to be
graduated or to have a gradient. Please see Figure 42 in the Paper
"The Structure of Space" I forwarded to you previous to this email.
You will see, Townsend Brown discusses creating an insulator of
paraffin wax within which is suspended Lead Oxide (PbO ). He explains
how if the paraffin wax is molten or in a heated liquid state and the
powdered Lead Oxide is mixed in and allowed to slightly settle under
the force of gravity, as the wax mixture cools, then what we get is
more Lead Oxide near the bottom than the top of the insulator. So we
get a graduated concentration of Lead Oxide, where there is a change
in the concentration of Lead Oxide across the insulator.

Interestingly Townsend Brown at this point is merely discussing how to
measure the electrical dipole due to gravitational effect, and this
experiment is not at all related in any way to electrets, although the
process is nearly identical. All that is missing is the application
of high electrical voltage, while the wax cools. You should just
realize, there is an important relationship here between gravitational
field and electrical field, which can be detected and measured using
such "doped" insulators, especially one which is "graduated". This
"gradient" is an import feature of Townsend Brown's experimentation.

My goal with this email, is just to greatly expand on the concept of a
"doped" electret, so I will continue as such.

Further realize, mixing some quantity of powdered metal oxide, into
some type of molten wax mixture is actually a very crude manufacturing
process, and this is where there exists tremendous room for
advancement and experimentation. Hand or machine mixing powder into
molten wax will give very inconsistent and unreliable results.
Consider that you will be producing graduated mixtures no matter how
you attempt to produce these "doped" electrets as some settling of the
metal oxide will be inevitable when producing these devices within a
gravitational field. Further, the size of the powdered particles will
be very likely, not uniform, if we were to say examine them under a
microscope, and in mixing there may be pockets where the concentration
is higher or lower or the mixing will not be uniform. Even in looking
at Townsend Browns own drawings of these "doped" insulator he draws
the insulator with "dots' inside to represent the doping material.
Such large "dots" is not the ideal situation, we want the "doping" to
be as uniform, fine, intermixed and controlled as possible. Do you
understand?

We can readily consider much more advanced materials and processes to
create such doped electrets, even to the point we are not using waxes
but more advanced insulator materials and the doping is on a nano or
atomic scale very similar to the modern semiconductor manufacturing
process. Using nano-particle metal oxides or even specially created
molecular materials for the "doping" would likely lead to very
remarkable results.

I envision something like a cube shaped device, within which we have
control electronics and electrical connections, wherein we could just
plug into and it would silently and indefinitely power something. At
first such power source may be quite large, like meter by meter by
meter in size, but with refinement the size may be reduced.
Regardless, I think most people would not be opposed to having a large
device such as this, outside their home, which provided them with a
source of reliable electrical energy, at any location on the Earth, at
no cost other than the purchase of said device.

You see the scarcity of energy is a great myth perpetuated for control
and monetary gain. Methods such as this provide great freedom and
advancement for all people on Earth, to free us from the pursuit of
sustaining energy just for survival, so we may apply ourselves to
greater researches and investigations.

I will continue to elaborate, provide evidence and documentation for
this in the hope you are able to apply this knowledge and make it a
reality.

Thanks,
Grant


message 6: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 11, 2018 03:37AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #5:

It may seem backwards for me to describe how to build the device in
detail first, then to explain how it works and the theory behind how
it works, but I do have a reason for doing it this way. My reason for
writing this out in this manner, is to emphasize that what I am
describing is real, serious, free and I am not withholding any
information.

Whereas most of these supposed "Free Energy" inventors or scientists
are constantly talking about the theory behind their device, the
merits it will have on society, exhuberant sales pitches, where to buy
their book or attend their next great meeting, where all will be
revealed, and yet in the end never provide any real details or
substance. There are so many promises of truth and knowledge on the
internet, which turn out to be frauds, hoaxes or just plain outright
money making scams. ( The Keshe Foundation, comes to mind as an
example). I on the other hand have started with the details, started
with the construction method and plans, started with enough substance
you or anyone else can actually build this and see it work with your
own eyes and senses. Furthermore, I am not asking for anything in
return, other than full disclosure of any results obtained from your
researches.

The next 3 or so emails, are going to backtrack a bit, and attempt to
explain various concepts related to conversion of energy. Now that we
have the basic construction details of how to actually build a real
device I do need to elaborate more and what exactly it is you are
building and what the significance of it really is. Another important
difference in what I am describing, nothing I am going to describe
requires a rewrite of modern physics and I do not think Einstein was
wrong( an inside joke ).

This subject is extremely broad in scope and honestly it overwhelms me
when I attempt to write about it and put it into words. It is so
overwhelming, it causes me to just outright avoid even trying. So I
hope you can appreciate why I write slowly and infrequently. I need
time to compose my thoughts into a communicable form. I originally
had planed to discuss Conversion of Energy in one email, but realize
now this subject is just to broad in itself to do so, and thus I will
divide the subject into 3 separate emails:
1. Sources of Energy
2. The One Universal Source of All Energy
3. A New Method to Convert Energy

Much of the third part I have touched on already, by explaining how to
build a real, physical apparatus to convert an ambient energy flux
into usable electric current, but I need to go into far more depth as
to what exactly that even means.

The first of these emails will follow shortly.

Thanks and Enjoy!
Grant


message 7: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #6:

Sources of Energy

Man requires energy to survive and we may consider what those sources
of energy are, are what determine the success or failure of a
civilization. Our current civilization is aware of a great number of
sources of energy and we have developed an immense infrastructure
around distributing and utilizing those sources of energy to sustain
our civilization. However, we must ask the question, “Are our sources
of energy the only sources and methods available to sustain a
civilization?”

Currently we know of many sources from which we harness energy to
maintain our civilization. Primarily we have used fossil fuels, such
as coal, natural gas and oil or biofuels such as wood. We have since
progressed further to more advanced and difficult to extract energies
such as geothermal heat from underground, wind, tidal, solar,
hydroelectric and eventually nuclear energy. All of these sources
have limitations, inefficiencies or complexities, and inherent
problems such as pollution, scarcity and waste. Despite some of
these shortcomings we have built up an advanced civilization numbering
in the billions using these methods.

Most of these sources mentioned above, have themselves a common
source. This source is no great mystery, is before our eyes every day
and taught in schools. The source for nearly all energy on Earth, is
our Sun. Solar energy is a conversion of the Sun's light into
electricity. The heat from the Sun, provides the thermal energy which
causes winds and the energy to lift water in the convection cycles
which lead to rain, snow and rivers for hydroelectric power. Fossil
fuels and biofuels are or have come indirectly from plants or animals,
which have grown using light from the Sun.

We can expand upon this further and see that geothermal and tidal
energy are related to the Sun and its gravitational field which
attracted the mass making up our Earth and Moon. The Moon produces
the tidal forces upon the Earth and the immense mass of the Earth
leads to the intense pressure and resulting heat which we utilize for
geothermal energy production. Likewise, it is the immense pressure
within the Sun, due to its immense mass, which leads to the
thermonuclear reactions powering the Sun itself. We have learned to
use similar nuclear processes on a smaller scale to create heat for
power production on Earth.

Some of these sources of energy can be used directly such as heat from
fire to heat our homes, as the explosive force to power our combustion
engines or even in waterwheels and windmills to do work directly, but
our common method is to use theses sources of energy to turn
generators for electrical power. Most often heat is used to produce
steam which is then used in a turbine to turn a generator. The
applications we have developed for utilizing these sources of energy
are a subject which is more involved than this discussion needs to go
into.

The point of this writing, is to point out when we continue to examine
this chain of energy and our current understanding we begin to
discover some inconsistencies and find we have a an incomplete
understanding of the true Source of all Energy.

Let us simplify the concept somewhat and say all all these sources of
energy, depend on atomic power.
By this I mean we need atoms for all these methods. Atoms which
according to our understanding all came into existence through their
birth in Stars. Stars compress matter and burn it in their nuclear
furnaces, producing heavier and heavier atoms. Then eventual explode
and spread that matter further out so it may again coalesce into new
star and repeat the process. However, originally stars only had
hydrogen atoms available for their nuclear furnaces and thus we have a
bit of a logical dilemma for we must ask, “Which came first, the stars
or the atoms?” For we need atoms for fuel in Stars and we need Stars
to produce atoms.

We can readily suggest in the early hot Universe, hydrogen atoms were
produced directly in large numbers. However, then we must ask, “From
where did the energy to produce these atoms come from?” Modern theory
suggests the Big Bang exploded from an infinitely dense point and so
since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that initial explosion
must have provided all the energy currently available in our Universe.
Every physicist must rest uneasy when uttering such a suggestion,
for of course the next question is, “How could such an infinitely
dense point containing infinite energy have possibly come into
existence in the first place?”

More recent theories introduce a new concept which answers many of
these questions. That concept is Zero-Point Energy. There are again
many different versions explaining how Zero-Point Energy gives rise to
the Universe within which we live, but I will not go into the
mathematical details here and provide a much simpler explanation. The
Universe did not start from Infinite mass and infinite energy, it
started from a void or an utter nothingness. The very first thing in
our Universe, which was not nothing, was something so subtle, so
minute, so tiny as to be for all purposes, insignificant and if we
rounded down in a manner of speaking would still be nothing. This
initial disturbance, or might we even say “Initial Impulse”, then
began happening more frequently and more often, combining, multiplying
and in every sense “exploding” into the myriad forms and structures we
see today. It is much easier for the mind to grasp, how void
underwent an infinitesimal “initial impulse”, for a fraction of a
second, which began the whole process, rather than the whole Universe
just suddenly exploded from something preexisting with everything
already inside it.

In fact, void still remains to this day in our Universe. Unlike, Big
Bang theory which suggests the Universe will expand to a certain
volume, then collapse back in upon itself, to eventually explode in a
another Big Bang. This Zero-Point concept suggests the Universe is
constantly fluctuating around this void point or zero point at all
times, everywhere. If you were to take all energy in all its various
forms and add it all up, combine it all together again, the result
would be again void. Some regions of the Universe may have higher
temperatures and greater masses, but always there will be a
corresponding opposite somewhere with colder temperature and a high
degree of “emptiness”. The Universe is a master illusion of complete
balance, wherein we experience forms and solidity that in a fraction
of a second could revert back to nothingness. It is this disturbance
from balance and return to balance which is the real, true driving
force behind every type of energy in the Universe. This fluctuation
is the breath of the Universe which interconnects and drives all
existence.

Our understanding is heavily focused on the material nature of things,
the solidity and reality we experience with our senses, but the true
reality goes much deeper than this. For every atom and all the energy
contained within, there is an opposite negative energy which sustains
and supports that atom, and allows it to exist. We are made of atoms,
and therefore our senses are made to detect and observe reactions and
interactions with matter. We will have difficulty comprehending the
opposite to this reality. Nevertheless, the reality is, there really
is at the most fundamental level, nothing in our Universe. We are
only really aware of one side, one pole of our Universes structure.
What we think of as energy is always this unbalance and the subsequent
re-balance back to void. Nothing more. To create something from
nothing, the sum of what is created, must remain nothing. Two entities
always exist in perfect opposition to each other, never one. All
energy exists due to this ebb and flow.

Of course I must touch on the subject of creation and science here.
One should realize, I have chosen my words carefully so as to not
conflict with either side of this common argument between the
existence of a creator and a purely scientific explanation.
Considered as written, this explanation seems to support both sides
equally as it should. But I do have an opinion of my own. Any true
scientist, will realize no matter the soundness of his arguments, if
he asks the questions which lead deep enough, there is really only one
answer. This process, call it generation, evolution of things or
"initial impulse", could not have evolved itself. An initial impulse,
is an absolute necessity to begin anything. We get to a question
which asks, "can an initial impulse just initially impulse itself?"
It is a contradiction, in fact it is a polar opposition. Existence
and non-existence are two poles, of void. We can trace this "Initial
Impulse" back to just such an incomprehensible thing as Existence and
non-existence combined. The mathematical equivalent of this is the
equation, "Zero equals Infinity". A philosophical discussion for
another time.

Once we understand the true source of all energy in our Universe, only
then do we understand how to power a civilization. Only when we
really understand and tap into this infinite, unified source of
energy, will we develop a truly remarkable and long lived
civilization. Only a individual which understands energy is not
scarce, but limitless, can ever hope to become a limitless individual.
Only a civilization which understands energy is not scarce, but
limitless, can ever hope to become a limitless civilization.

Grant Hayman


message 8: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #7:

Accept the continuation of my explanation of Energy. There will be
two more parts which follow. These final two parts will make and
effort to bring the discussion back to real experimentation and how
exactly the doped electret produces power from the environment.

You mentioned having some questions and I will do my best to answer
them. It is just important to me to get you a bit broader
comprehension about what exactly it is you are doing with this
experimentation.

The One Universal Source of All Energy

When we grasp the fundamental process at work in our Universe which
drives all motion, we begin to grasp the infinite amount of energy
available to a civilization. However, it must be pointed out, we need
to have respect for the powers with which we are dealing. For
without respect for the source of our energy, our civilization would
be prone to misuse and corrupt it, biting the hand which feeds it, in
a manner of speaking. If anything in these writings is important, it
is the following statement. We cannot isolate our spiritual and
social understanding of the world in which we live, from the
scientific realities and forces which govern our Universe. These
subjects are far more interrelated and interconnected than many have
ever considered. While this treatise is giving out the method to
extract unlimited energy from the environment, it is not giving a
license to abuse the source, allow excess beyond the need, waste
energy and show disrespect. This energy comes from a balance in the
Universe and an understanding of the law of balance must, of the
utmost necessity, always be kept first and foremost in ones mind when
developing technology to tap into this Universal energy.

If a civilization, through ignorance or arrogance, chose to ignore
this law of balance it would eventually find itself paying the
ultimate price. There is no avoiding the payment of a debt to
re-balance energy in the Universe. It is as inevitable as life and
death, as the Sun rises and sets and is in all sense of the words, an
immutable law. Any energy gained is always gained at the expense of
energy lost from somewhere else and in turn that loss will need to be
balanced. What many fail to realize is, this includes spiritual,
social, and mental energies, as well as physical energies. Which is
why there is an emphasis on respecting and understanding this source
of energy. Not only can it indefinitely power our civilization,
understanding it can lead to incredible advancement in social and
spiritual matters as well.

This energy and the balancing forces causes the formation of
everything which exists in the Universe. It likewise destroys atoms,
planets, Suns and even whole galaxies if those actions are what is
required to maintain balance. Our tiny civilization has no power
against these forces, no matter how important we think we are. Only a
civilization which understands the true ebb and flow, balancing nature
of energy and, more importantly, understands the connection between
energy and all things, including spiritual matters, could ever hope to
be limitless. Failing to realize this a civilization would always be
subject to a rise and eventual fall, the repeating cycle of birth,
growth and death. We could go on at length concerning the
philosophical and spiritual implications of understanding the One
Universal Source of All Energy, but the purpose of these papers is not
philosophical or theoretical, but practical, realization and proof.
So let us not forget these concerns, but we will continue and bring
things back to Earth.

Previously, we touched on the importance of Hydrogen to the formation
of the Universe. The hydrogen atoms, it was determined, must have
been formed before any Stars were even born because stars need
hydrogen to burn. Hydrogen was thus, the fundamental building block
of every other atom in the Universe. We questioned the process which
formed the early Hydrogen atoms. We are very familiar in our science
of the energy stored within atoms, thanks to the well known equation
E=mc^2, which shows great quantities of energy are stored within all
mass. However, we still have no real comprehension or solid
explanation as to how all this energy got into the atoms in the first
place. Interestingly, we have yet to create a single hydrogen atom,
from void or without other preexisting atoms. We could onsider
Hydrogen atoms, miniature stars, which pull their energy from the
environment in an identical fashion to our own Sun, albeit on a much
smaller scale. The means behind this constructive evolution of matter
and bodies should be of great interest to scientists researching the
production of energy. Instead our energy focus is on destruction of
already existing matter or molecular bonds to release the energy
already contained within. Hydrogen atoms, developed and evolved
through various underlying stages, like everything else in our
Universe. The hydrogen evolved and came into existence through the
action of some, as of yet, unknown source of energy.

Hydrogen is worthy of further discussion as we discuss sources of
energy. Hydrogen is the most abundant and primordial element in the
Universe. Over time, it is compressed into Stars which, once massive
enough, crushed the Hydrogen atoms together until they combined to
form Helium. Over time Stars grew more massive until they could
combine Helium to form Lithium. This evolution progressed, causing
the formation of even elements, making up all the atoms we know of
today. The sheer number of elements and elements of very great mass
is a likely an important indicator of the true age of the Universe.
Of all atoms produced one of real significance was Oxygen, which in
combination with two Hydrogen atoms, formed Water.

The significance of the particular molecular combination we call
Water, needs no explanation and is apparent to anyone alive today.
Some may not know, the burning of Hydrogen and Oxygen to form Water
produces a significant amount of energy. The most powerful rocket
engines burn Hydrogen and Oxygen or some similar mixture relying on
the same release of energy. We can use these two elements to produce
significant quantities of electrical power in a Fuel cell. What is
surprising is our civilization has made little use of these reactions
and it is far from our primary source of chemical power. Rather than
using the unlimited, abundant Hydrogen and Oxygen as a fuel, as an
energy source, we have resorted to complex, scarce, polluting and
labour intensive hydrocarbons as one of the primary sources of energy
for our civilization. Let us point out, using an abundant fuel
which any person could easily produce themselves, would not lend
itself to control of said person nor to high profits due to its
scarcity. It is almost as if we avoided the use of Hydrogen because
it was too abundant, but that is a discussion for another time and
going off topic here.

The very building block of the Universe, Hydrogen, is the most
abundant element in the entire Universe. Hydrogen's reaction with
Oxygen is one of the most energetic reactions. The bi-product of the
reaction is the most beneficial molecule to life, Water. To use any
other element as a fuel source, would be very unintelligent.

However, for the purposes of these papers, we are not so much
interested in the Hydrogen itself as an energy source, but Hydrogen's
own source of energy. We want don't want to tap into an intermediary.
We want to tap into the One Universal Source of All Energy itself.
We have explained this Universal Energy is a desire or reaction to
maintain balance which is the result of some initial impulse, but what
is its true nature and what would we call it? This however, is
currently unknown and no attempt will be made to elaborate further.
One must know when to admit one does not know. For now we can just
refer to this source as the One Universal Source of All Energy.
However, the One Universal Source of All Energy is something which we
can know. The One Universal Source of All Energy is something our
civilization needs to research, to devise experiments and devices to
investigate this source with utmost haste and sincerity. The purpose
of this treatise is to reveal some of these experiments and devices.
For the purposes of this treatise, we only need to know and agree
there is really only One Universal Source of All Energy.
Another fact we must fully comprehend, is energy is not scarce.

Thanks,
Grant


message 9: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #8:

Hello,

My apologies for the long delays in my communication. Find below the
continuation of the explanation.
There will be one last part to follow.

Thanks,
Grant


A New Method to Converting Energy - Part One

Previous articles touched on the more esoteric concepts of which we
are dealing and most importantly on the social/spiritual aspects of
energy in our Universe and how it is connected with civilization itself.
We now leave those concepts for future discussion and focus on the
more tangible, concrete concepts which bring the discussion full
circle back to the original description of a device to tap unlimited
energy. Words and writing are grand, but there is often too little
evidence and substance. We are left with a picture of a great feast,
with nothing to actually eat. My intention is fully the opposite.
These words teach the fundamental knowledge to actually, physically
understand and produce real working experiments which will ultimately
prove these concepts are real.

Perhaps the greatest evidence there is a currently untapped source of
energy available to our civilization , is in the motion of the planets
and even the solar system. We can consider the prevailing
explanation for the rotation of the Earth, which states, “The Earth's
rotation is a vestigial remnant of the rotation of the early solar
system when the Earth coalesced.” The same explanation is offered for
the orbit of the Earth, the rotation of the Sun and all the planets
within the Solar system, likely even for the Galaxy itself.

The long standing explanations propose a bodies' or system's motion is
due to gravitational effects which then direct the bodies linear
motion into circular or angular orbits and rotations. The explanation
relies on “Newton's” First law, which dictates once an object is set
it motion it will continue the motion unless acted upon by some
unbalancing force. So in simple terms the explanation for why the
Earth spins, is because it always has and nothing is acting against
the spin to stop it. This is the logic currently applied to the
motion of all bodies.

So we must ask, “From whence did the bodies get this original motion?”
We ask, “Why does the formation of these systems and bodies lead to
rotation why does it lead to any motion at all?” We must go back to
the very concept of motion and acceleration itself to demonstrate how
the current explanation is as circular as the motion it professes to
explain. Let me point out, I am not in any way contradicting the laws
of Newton or motion or any current scientific laws. These laws work
and are valid. They have served us well and led to interplanetary
navigation and a working understanding of gravitational effects. What
this article proposes is these Laws are generalized and a true
understanding of the underlying reason for these laws, is incomplete.
The gravitational force itself, being the one factor, which is the
most misunderstood. My purpose is to explain these existing Laws,
from a different perspective.

It is suggested again here, as it has been suggested by others
elsewhere, that the rotation of these bodies and systems is not
vestigial in any sense of the word, but the result of active forces
upon those bodies. These motions are the result of energy, coming
from outside the bodies or systems. The motion is related to the
conditions of space surrounding those bodies. The bodies are not
merely billiard balls set in motion from interactions with other
billiard balls or due to this mysterious gravitational force, of which
we profess to know so much but in reality know so little. The motion
is always dynamic and an ongoing action and change. The motion is not
due to a previous force which set it in motion and continues only
because there is no opposing force to alter the motion. The forces in
Space around and most importantly, within a mass, drive the motion,
continuously. When one grasps what this really means, ones will have
a greater understanding of the Universal Source of All Energy of which
this whole treatise is concerned.

The Sun is the primary source of energy for us on Earth. From where
does the Sun get its energy? The most common answer will be from
nuclear fusion, but this is only partially correct. The Sun gets all
its Energy from outside the Solar System. Exactly as we have
determined the Earth gets all its energy from a source outside of it,
the Sun. The Planets, Stars, moons and even the atoms composing these
bodies are all interconnected into a vast Universal "circuit". The
work of Hans Alfven and Kristian Birkeland directly support such a
Universal electrical circuit, but there is a physical component to
this connection as well.

This interconnection is what drives and powers the Sun. The energy
released in the Fusion process is a result of this interconnection and
without this the Sun would quickly extinguish itself. This is the
reason true Fusion remains an unavailable process for energy
production on Earth. Likewise it is not solely the radiation and
emanations through Space from the Sun which empowers and energizes the
Earth. There is a more direct connection from the Earth to the Sun
which contributes most of the Energy. Likewise an atom of Hydrogen
has no energy within itself other than that which comes from the
environment. This connection comes right down to the surface of the
Earth and even penetrates deep within the Earth itself to all mass
composing the Earth.

We digress slightly here to speak of motion itself and ask an
important question concerning Newton's first law. Let us consider two
atoms of Hydrogen, one in motion and one not in motion. We must
consider these concepts of motion and not in motion, more deeply. The
motion, as Einstein pointed out, is truly relative. To be stopped or
not in motion, is not possible. The lack of motion of a body is only
apparent when compared relative to another body. The atom may be
stationary with respect to the Earth, but the Earth itself is in
rotation and motion.

So we must realize the reality is there is nothing which is really,
motionless in the Universe. Similarly, a static electric charge,
which is an electric field which is not changing, is only relative to
another electric charge. For again, what we consider static or
unchanging, is from a different perspective a charge moving, as it is
on the Earth which itself is moving, and thus no longer can be
considered static. The ultimate realization which comes from this
understanding, which few grasp, is the motion or lack of motion and
even electrical charge or lack of electrical charge, are determined
not solely within a body, but must be determined in relation to the
environment, external to the body.

There is no such thing as a body unaffected by external unbalancing
forces, for every bodies' motion, is determined by external
unbalancing forces. In fact, the existence of the body itself, is due
to external unbalancing forces. When we think of Newton's billiard
ball model of bodies in motion, the space and environment within which
those bodies move, is disregarded. The environment and Space around a
body, cannot be disregarded like this. Of course, it is accepted
there are forces and influences upon a body in Space, like the effect
of the table's surface upon the billiard ball, but we are going much
further than this.

To better grasp the concepts presented in these articles, one must
grasp, “Space” is not equal to “Void”. That is “Space” in our
Universe, is not “Nothing” nor “Empty”. “Empty Space” cannot and
does not exist in the Universe. Space occupies volume and has
'properties'( permeability and permeativity for example), it can
propagate electromagnetic fields and energy, bodies can exist within
it. Void does not and cannot have volume or any properties, could not
propagate energy and would not be void if something existed within it.
I refer to Townsend Brown himself who described “Space” as a
“"completely negatively charged continuum.” Something in Space, is
negative to Space.

A further slight digression to better explain this concept. We are
aware of 4 dimensions in science, the 3 physical dimensions and a
dimension of time, Einstein called this Space/Time. These 4
dimensions, in and of themselves, are not a body, nor volume, and can
have no motion. 4 dimensions provides a 'framework' upon which to
have bodies or define a volume but can have no substance on its own.
It is technical wrong to call the 3 Dimensions, Space. We actually
need a fifth dimension, of density or substance or mass, in order to
have something actually 'in' the 4 dimensional framework. Only then
can have a volume with more stuff or a volume with less stuff,
existing at defined points on the 3 dimensional axis, which can change
or move in time. To explain this simply, defining the coordinate
structure of a map, can define a position on the map, but it does not
define what is at that position on the map. Furthermore, the concept
of 'something' or 'not something' are both a measure of the same
thing, density or energy or even mass. In fact, we can even go so far
as to generalize the motion of something in Space/Time is what truly
defines 'something'. Space in such a continuum is not a region devoid
of mass, it is a region opposite of mass. This is an important
distinction.

Let us refer back to our two atoms of Hydrogen, one in motion, one not
in motion. If we exclude the external environment and look inside the
structure of the atom itself, is there a difference between the two
atoms? Could we, with some unknown experiment, isolate the atoms and
solely by looking at their internal structure, determine which atom is
the one in motion and which is the one not in motion? The answer is,
yes we can. For the effect of the external environment, alters the
structure of the body upon which it acts, and this alteration is what
“stores” or “maintains” the motion. The bodies motion is a reflection
of the environment surrounding the body. They are not separable. The
inertial or gravitational field of a body, has a specific pattern and
direction of energy within that body.

For example, when a Hydrogen atom is put within a strong electrical
field, the shape of the atom is distorted by the electrical field.
The positive proton is shifted away from the positive direction of the
electric field, while the negative 'electron' is attracted towards the
positive direction of the electric field. This unbalance in the shape
of the atom, leads to what we have called an electrical 'force' upon
the atom. Likewise magnetic forces and mechanical acceleration's(
like gravity ) have a similar unbalancing, distorting effect on mass.
If we were to physically accelerate a Hydrogen atom, the proton, being
much more massive will take more energy to move than the much smaller
electron, so there is an internal unbalance within the atom, due to
the differing masses within, when under acceleration. So we could,
in essence, look at the shape of a hydrogen atom and determine both
the direction( not position ) and magnitude of its motion. The two
Hydrogen atoms, one in motion and one not in motion, would not be the
same shape and the relative position of their electron and proton,
would not be the same. This may seem irrelevant to some, but some
will begin to realize how this connects back to the work of Townsend
Brown and the device which has been described by myself at the start
of all this communication. For those who do not yet see the
connection, I will elaborate.

But not right now. One final article will complete this discussion.

Grant Hayman


message 10: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #9:



A New Method to Convert Energy – Part Two

Knowing the relationship between motion, mass and space is important
to understand the relationship between energy, mass and gravity. The
gravitational force binding us to this Earth has become a subject of
much conjecture and research, especially since we have entered the
space age. Many work towards a breakthrough in physics which will
allow us to produce or counter gravity for propulsion, a method of
anti-gravity. Such a breakthrough conjures ideas of a fantastic new
future where every person could explore space, energy would be readily
available for all and our society would progress to a new, more
advanced level.

Although the idea of a true 'flying car' or even just a simple device
which could float in the air against the force of gravity ( using some
as of yet unknown method ) is exciting we do not need to go to such
extravagant and complex lengths to prove such a concept is possible.
The simple Doped Electret energy conversion device, described at the
beginning of this treatise is entirely capable of providing all the
real evidence we need to take this next step. If it is possible to
use electromagnetic fields to control gravity, then the reverse is
equally true. We should be able to tap or convert gravity to get
electrical or magnetic energy.

The definition of energy in physics, is “The capacity to do work.”
Work is defined as “Force applied times distance moved.” So we can
think of energy, as defined by physics as, “The ability to impart
motion.” Gravity can do work. Falling water is one of the sources of
energy we utilize today on Earth.
The motion of the water is converted into motion of a turbine, which
turns a generator, which produces electrical power. Interestingly,
how the water got to height in the first place in order to fall
through the turbine, is likewise due to gravity but also due to the
external energy input of the Sun. The Sun heats the water, which
evaporates, and the water vapor is then lighter than the surrounding
air so it rises.

It rises because the gravitational force on the surrounding air puts
it a pressure which then forces the lighter water vapor, upwards
against the force of gravity. This is the same method a hot air
balloon uses to overcome the force of Gravity and float in the air.
The energy to move the hot air balloon upward against the force of
gravity, is coming from the gravitational force on the cool air
surrounding the balloon, which then forces it upward.

This explanation is required, because the Doped Electret uses a
similar process. Whereas we have hot air in one case, we have a
stored high electrical potential in in the Doped Electret. Where we
have high surrounding air pressure in the first case, we have a high
surrounding electrical potential in the second case. And where our
result is buoyancy against gravity in the first case, in the second
case we have a electrical potential produced in the Doped Electret.
The key point to understand is the energy is coming from outside the
device, not from within it. It is converting an outside ambient flux
into a direct current potential. Like the hot air balloon only needs
to maintain the temperature of the hot air within it to perform work
against gravity, so does the Doped Electret only need to maintain the
high electrical potential within it to produce its electrical output.

We mention a high surrounding electrical potential is required,
similar to the high air pressure and this is the connection back to
the previous discussions. Townsend Brown considered, “Gravity is the
first derivative of electric field.” He further clarifies this by
saying gravitational force is directly related to the K( Dielectric
Constant ) and magnetic permeability of space. The Dielectric
Constant of vacuum( what we would consider space ) is the constant we
know as the electrical permeativity of space. I know some may be lost
by the physics and mathematics so I make every attempt to clarify the
meaning as much as possible. So let me clarify these statements.

When we say a function is reduced to the first derivative, it is a way
of saying we can simplify the function in a manner of speaking and
what Townsend Brown was pointing out is we can reduce Gravity so that
it is not necessarily dependent on mass, but on the properties of
space at that point. Namely the electrical and magnetic properties of
space at that point. Realize the Speed of Light, which is the speed
at which all electromagnetic effects are exchanged in Space, is
related to the permeativity and permeability of Space. See Image 1.

We know gravitational fields, effect the Speed of Light and the rate
time flows. So if the speed of light is reduced due to gravity, then
the permeability and/or permeativity have changed in that region of
Space. Furthermore, this coincides with Einstein's relativity whose
greatly simplified conclusion is gravitational force is due to a
curvature( or we might say a distortion ) of space itself. This
reaffirms our consideration that the force of Gravity is not solely
due to the body or object itself, but must always be considered in
relation to the entire external environment surrounding the body. We
could say the mass distorts Space, but we can equally say the
distortion of Space, is mass.

What is important to understand, is what kind of distortion are we
talking about here. Townsend brings this complex discussion back to
something tangible. He directly asserts, the distortion of space,
which we measure as gravitational effect or mass, is a distortion of
the permeativity and/or permeativity of Space. So we have made a
connection between electromagnetic properties and gravity. The
approach here is interesting and requires further extrapolation.

The final piece of the puzzle, is Space has more than two properties.
This is the missing link, which allows all the other pieces to fall
into place. This third property of Space, is a mechanical physical
property we could call, “Space pressure”. This property, like
permeativity and permeability exists at all points in Space, both in
massive bodies and in 'extra-galactic' space( what some would
incorrectly call empty space ). It is this property which conducts
the gravitational force. We require 3 properties for the simple
reason, we have a 3 dimensional continuum. However, as discussed
previously we have time and the need for a dimension of density as well.

At this point, we have a very solid theory. However, Townsend Brown
developed this theory after examining the results of experimentation.
So we have a theory, but more significant is we have real experimental
apparatus to test and demonstrate the validity of the theory. Most
investigations into Townsend Brown's work have focused on his
“Gravitor” type devices, and measuring a force out of them. Much work
as been done to discredit( or might say suppress ) of which I will not
get into at this time. This is again because of the interest in
'Anti-Gravity' but is misdirected effort. The real and most powerful
evidence of the relationship between Gravity and the Electric field,
comes from investigations with the Doped Electret.

A great deal of money and effort was expended by Townsend Brown to
examine the nature of the petrovoltaic effect and self-potential of
various rocks on the Earth. Petrovoltaic effect and self-potential is
otherwise known as Rock electricity. It was known rock under extreme
pressure or rocks formed under extreme pressure, like Granite and
Basalt exhibited the ability to produce small direct current
potentials. This is similar to the Peizoelectric effect used as an
igniter in various gas devices, in which a sharp impact against a
crystalline material( like rock ) produces a high voltage discharge.
However, the petrovoltaic effect is continuous and of lower potential.
This research is what led to the development of what Townsend Brown
called his “Battery”, the Doped Electret.

He discovered the rocks, solidified under extreme pressure, were
similar in nature to an Electret and a high potential had been stored
within the rock. Due to impurities and the pressures involved a small
direct current potential could be measured. Townsend Brown was able
to “Dope” normal Elecrets with small quantities of heavy metal oxide(
such as lead oxide ) and duplicate the petrovoltaic effect without the
need for extreme heat and pressure. It is the results of
experimentation with these “Doped Electrets” which led Townsend Brown
to his conclusions regarding the nature of the Gravitational Field.

The result of these experiments which is most interesting in light of
all that previously discussed, was the diurnal variations in the
magnitude of the electrical current produced from these devices. What
Townsend Brown discovered, was the value of the electrical output
changed according to the time of day, position of the Sun, position of
the Moon and after much experimentation he found even on the position
of the Earth relative to the Galactic Center. Remarkably, he was able
to accurately determine the direction to the Galactic Center using one
of his devices, within a cave. Figure 2. Out of all the results
claimed by Townsend Brown this is the one result which should have
garnered the most attention and yet seems to have been larger ignored
by the public. The reason is likely the significance of this is not
appreciated. After reading the rest of these articles, one should see
how the results of this experiment in a cave, tie in completely with
everything so far discussed.

This simple experiment, with a device anyone could construct in their
home, proved there was some kind of “Penetrating, External flux” which
could be used to determine the direction of massive bodies in Space.
This device was converting some kind of energy, related to the
gravitational field, into current. The magnitude of that current,
depended on the position of gravitational bodies in space and it
appeared to be “non-electromagnetic' in nature. In that it could
readily pass through normal methods to shield electromagnetic waves.
Townsend Brown discovered a method to directly measure the
“distortion” of Space. The far-reaching implications of this
discovery can not be over-stated.

For every great scientific discovery, no matter how complex, we can
often resort to small, unremarkable demonstrations to educate others
of the concept. Like we release a balloon filled with air to fly
around a room to show the rocket propulsion effect of expelling a gas
through a nozzle or blow air across a sheet of paper in front of your
mouth to demonstrate the lifting affect of fast moving air.
Likewise the discovery of 'Anti-gravitational” effects will not come
from complex apparatus making some object hover in the air, but by a
simple device which can demonstrate the required relationship and
connections to the science involved. Science has a tendency to
separate, catalog, and complicate things sometime, when what we really
need to do is take a step back and approach the problem from a
different perspective. Producing a 'Doped Electret' is a simple
process. There is nothing remarkable required. Measurements of the
current produced by such a device are equally unremarkable. Normal
off the shelf test equipment would suffice. What is required is
effort and motivation and most of all an understanding of what is
being done. The motivation and effort I cannot provide, but I hope
this treatise has given the required understanding and significance.

A link to my archive of Thomas Townsend Brown's documents will follow shortly.

Grant Hayman


message 11: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Email #10 (final):

Hello,

You are welcome to download my references and archives regarding
Electrets and Thomas Townsend Brown.

This will link to a page providing the downloads:
http://alienhosting.ca/Download/

I would provide direct links, but some email providers block links to
Zip files.

Thanks again for your interest in my work.

Grant

Grant Hayman
support@ovaltech.ca
http://support.ovaltech.ca


message 12: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 12, 2018 08:42PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Okay, apart from some of the attachments Grant sent thru to provide evidence and studies to support his work (most of which can be gotten on his site I think or else via contacting him), that's the end of this email correspondence for now.

So can finally open this thread up for comments (we only kept it closed so that when people read this thread in future they'll at least see it all neatly together).

Now looking forward to comments and hopefully other scientists might eventually test out these concepts (reproducing as per the instructions and practices laid out) or else provide their own ideas/theories on this type of energy conversion.

Thanks,
James


message 13: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1361 comments I have difficulties here. First, the idea that the rocks have charge. They may have localised charge. A change of pressure times volume is a form of work (a useful form of energy, as opposed to heat) so the pressure on rocks deep underground does do work on them, and that MIGHT be manifest as charge separation. But I can't see it as being available to do anything because there is too much ground on top of most of it.

There are comments that gravity is some sort of second order manifestation of electricity. As far as we can tell, the two are not connected. Electric interactions are dipolar, i.e. there are positive and negative, and they cancel each other. You can screen out the effects of electricity. Gravity is unaffected by everything except the addition of more mass.

The linkage is claims through the fact gravity slows light, and therefore it changes the values of the permittivity and permeability of space. That seems reasonable up to a point, but then he goes on to link it to spacetime and other relativistic effects. Now Einstein's relativity is usually explained by the contraction of space. It can also be explained through the enhancement of mass. We now have the proposal that it depends on the permittivity of space. The point I want to make is you have to choose one explanation. You cannot mix two of them, otherwise you get into a real mess, so if he wants to introduce a third explanation, he has to show why all the rest follows.

The discussion goes over an awful lot of territory. I have to go right now. I don't know how many others are interested, but for me there is no connection made between gravity and electricity. Not so far, anyway, unless I missed something.


message 14: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) The Electric Universe people, namely Wal Thornhill, explain gravity by modeling the orbits of electrons as elliptical. That has the effect of having the end with the nucleus be slightly more positive and the other end slightly more negative. This causes attraction like any other electrostatic effect, it's just orders of magnitude weaker.

The implication of this model then is planets can't be solid spheres because there would be weak repulsion at the center. Therefore the planets must be hollow. The model is not contradicted by measurements of shock waves through the earth.


message 15: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1361 comments The field from dipoles falls off inverse cube with distance while gravity is inverse square, so that can't be right. Also, certain materials have very large dipole moments, but their gravitational force is the same as anything else


message 16: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 16, 2018 12:02PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Jim wrote: "The Electric Universe people, namely Wal Thornhill, explain gravity by modeling the orbits of electrons as elliptical. That has the effect of having the end with the nucleus be slightly more positi..."

Yeah, the electric universe theory seems to be gaining a little traction in recent years. I'm not sure if it is strictly related to the energy conversion model or theories laid out above, but here's some info from The Electric Universe site anyway:

Electric Gravity in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE https://www.holoscience.com/wp/electr...

The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields. Much of the material considered by the Electric Universe is peer-reviewed, but not all (see Speculative Theories, below).

Terrestrial electricity is often seen in Atmospheric electricity such as lightning and the aurora, and also appears in St Elmo;s fire, and upper atmosphere phenomena such as red sprites, blue jets, elves and tigers. It is estimated to be over 8 million lightning strikes ”per day”, each carrying an average of 30kAmps.

Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.

Electricity throughout the Universe https://www.electricuniverse.info/ele...
"Electricity in the Universe has been identified from beneath our feet, in animals and plants, our biosphere, and out to the furthest reaches of the Universe. In general, electricity is present wherever we find plasma, and since 99.999% of the visible universe is in the plasma state, magnetic field and electric currents are nearly everywhere."

99.999% of the visible universe is a plasma and all moving plasmas produce their own magnetic field and electric currents. For example, the Sun (and stars) produce current loops in solar flares, and currents flow thought extragalactic jets spanning many parsecs.

The Plasma Universe http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma...

Although outer space is a vacuum, it is permeated with the plasma of the Solar “Wind”. This interacts with Sun’s magnetic field, producing the heliospheric current sheet]which carries about 3×109 amperes through our own Solar System. The galactic counterpart is estimated to carry of 1017 – 1019 Amps. The heliospheric current sheet is the largest coherent structure in our Solar System.

Heliospheric current circuit http://www.plasma-universe.com/Helios...

Plasmas are strongly influenced by electro-magnetic forces. A laboratory simulation of two interacting electric “Birkeland” currents, models many characteristics of galaxy formation. The Electric Universe is based on the known properties of plasmas, in preference to unproven theoretical physics, and consequently does not require black holes, dark matter and dark energy, neutron stars and the Big Bang. The Safire Project is testing the Electric Sun theory.

More speculative aspects of the Electric Universe theory argue that some planetary features, such as craters are produced by cosmic mega-lightning electrical scarring rather than impacts with meteorites. It is also suggested that the Sun and stars are powered externally electrically (see the Electric Sun theory), and the behavior of comets is due to their interaction with electrified interplanetary plasma.

The Squatter Man (Squatting Man) Petroglyphs | evidence of the Electric Universe http://www.theplasmaverse.com/verse/s...


message 17: by GravityGuru (new)

GravityGuru | 5 comments As the author of the above inclusion I will attempt to address the comments here.

First, the article discusses the construction of a device which does operate as claimed and instructions are provided with which reproduction of said device is possible. Keep this in mind. Theoretical discussion is second to practical experimentation.

A doped electret does produce usable current. A doped electret has been used to detect the direction of the Galactic center from an underground, electromagnetically shielded location. This defies current understanding and has been suppressed.

Second,the article provides instruction and explanation regarding a currently unused method of electrical energy extraction from the environment, not a detailed explanation of the connection between Gravity and Electricity. So you did not "miss something" because it is not within the scope of the article. Where the article touches upon the subject of Gravity are in the context of Townsend Brown's theories and concepts in relation to the device in question and nothing more.

To explain the relationship between Gravity and Electrical forces would require much more elaboration and many more pages of text.

I can briefly touch on the subject, but connecting Gravity and Electrical effects was never the intention, is out of scope and missing the entire point of the article.

Electrical dipole effects and dynamic electrical fields can be shielded, whereas pure static electric fields cannot really be shielded like you think. Detection of static fields always introduces a dipole, which changes what is being detected. Volts is potential not current. Whenever we measure Volts, we are in every case converting some of the potential into current to perform our measurement.

You currently exist in a static electric field whose measurement is over 400 Volts per meter, where you sit right now. On average for a standing person this 600 Volts between your head and your feet, yet you are unaware, feel nothing of this, and it is extremely difficult to measure this and impossible to shield oneself from it. Such static fields pass equally through insulators and metals.

Further, we are completely ignoring "frequency" or "vibration" and relative motion when doing these measurements. If we have a dipole in rotation at very high angular velocity, what is the nature of its electric fields? If we attempted to measure one or another electrical pole around such a rapidly rotating dipole, we would get no measurement, due to equal exposure over time to both dipoles. Due to motion, the nature of the resultant electrical field is very much changed. If the rotation is significantly high, no electrical field is detected. Like trying to measure DC from an AC source. What would be the electrical forces between collections of rotating dipoles? We see it would depend much more on the frequencies, alignments than anything else.

Both the concepts above play a significant role in the relationship between Gravity and Electrical field. In a sense the connection between Gravity and Electrical field is like this, but as I said this comment is a very, very much simplified explanation which would require much more elaboration.


message 18: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments GravityGuru wrote: "First, the article discusses the construction of a device which does operate as claimed and instructions are provided with which reproduction of said device is possible. Keep this in mind. Theoretical discussion is second to practical experimentation. ..."

Thanks Grant. Are you saying you and/or your associates have already built such a "free energy"/Energy Conversion device?


message 19: by GravityGuru (new)

GravityGuru | 5 comments I am referring to the results reported by Townsend Brown and the explanations in his patents. I am not aware of anyone who has taken the effort to reproduce this simple experiment, which in a sense, is the point of my whole discussion.

Why has no one, personal or otherwise tried this? Why is there no research or investigation into this method, when clearly Townsend Brown saw results worth patenting. Especially since experimentation could be undertaken with minimal time and resources when compared to the majority of projects out there.

I must point out it is erroneous to suggest, because I have pointed out the construction details for this device, I am required to have built it myself for said construction details to be legitimate. I have never built a house, nor built every electrical schematic available, but I trust said plans are legitimate because such construction has been done by others.

I have provided a video showing how to build an electret. I have not built an electret, but indeed others have and I trust if I followed his plans and put in the time and effort, I could do so.

It troubles me, a modern inventor or intellectual, not only must research a concept, develop a theory, develop an experiment, but he must also translate it into a comprehensible form which a layman can understand, invest hundreds of hours and dollars of his own personal time and money to build and then experiment with said device, then further he is expected to 'sell', 'publish' and 'release' his results and ideas to the world. I hope you realize this is a pretty high expectation.

Having the knowledge or plans to construct something and the time, location and money to realize such a construction are two very different things. I did not look this up, but I would guess Einstein did not himself build all the experiments which proved his theory. Effort is required here to prove this, but it does not necessarily need to be my effort.

The experimental device described here is a simple device, an electret doped with some heavy metal oxide. There are detailed construction details and video's online showing exactly how to build an electret, ( examples provided in the links here even ). There is no mystery, no secret and nothing hidden here. It is public, readily accessible knowledge. The only real difficulty in reproducing this experiment, is trying various doping materials and concentrations. This experiment is suitable for all these backyard, garage and basement experimenters who want something to prove but have been misguided into unproductive avenues.

We have right here in plain sight, the construction details for a device which extracts electrical energy from the environment in a method which is not really considered in modern science at this time. Call this device a "little hole" in our modern theories of electrical energy, if you will. A "little hole" which like the famous story, may lead much deeper than one could possibly imagine.

I think an import point to be taken from this article, is "Anyone can build this device." A point which cannot be said for any other supposed "free energy" system I have ever seen or read about.


message 20: by GravityGuru (new)

GravityGuru | 5 comments In response to the previous comment: "The linkage is claims through the fact gravity slows light, and therefore it changes the values of the permittivity and permeability of space. That seems reasonable up to a point, but then he goes on to link it to spacetime and other relativistic effects. Now Einstein's relativity is usually explained by the contraction of space. It can also be explained through the enhancement of mass. We now have the proposal that it depends on the permittivity of space. The point I want to make is you have to choose one explanation. You cannot mix two of them, otherwise you get into a real mess, so if he wants to introduce a third explanation, he has to show why all the rest follows."-endquote

Relativity is explained as a curvature or distortion of "Space". Gravity is referred to as a 'cause' or 'affect' of such curvature or distortion. What Townsend was proposing was the the physical properties of 'Space' to which we would ascribe 'curvature' are the permeativity and permeability of Space. That is for Space to 'curve', there should be some real physical property 'curved' or some property of space which changes as a measure of said curvature( independent of mass ).

Nothing cannot 'curve'. Space in relativity is the 'framework' of motion, the 'XYZ', the 'metric' which was determined to capable of 'distortion' or 'curvature'. But a mathematical 'axis' or a 'framework' really needs physical properties to 'curve'. There must exist physical properties of 'Space' for it to be able to distort. What are these physical properties of Space which 'curve'?

We know mass can distort space, but space can exist free of mass. We know space has properties of permeability and permeativity, so it is only logical to conclude those properties play some role in the 'curvature' of Space.


message 21: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Different to the above, but maybe this has some correlations...

Experimental device generates electricity from the coldness of the universe https://phys.org/news/2019-05-experim...


message 22: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1361 comments James wrote: "Different to the above, but maybe this has some correlations...

Experimental device generates electricity from the coldness of the universe https://phys.org/news/2019-05-experim......"


It is a bit misleading. It takes radiation from somewhere, and uses the cold side of the device as a lower temperature sink. The actual energy comes from the warm side. The second law of thermodynamics still works. Whoever wrote that article either misunderstood or was being frivolous.


message 23: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11362 comments Oh okay...dayum, so no free electricity yet?!


message 24: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1361 comments Sorry James. You have to pay your bill :-(


back to top