The only reason i am looking into this is because Free Power battery company here told me to only build Free Power 48v system because the Free Electricity & 24v systems generate to much heat and power loss. Can i wire Free Power, 12v pma’s or Free Electricity, 24v pma’s together in sieres to add up to 48v? If so i do not know how to do it and will that take care of the heat problem? I am about to just forget it and just build Free Power 12v system. Its not like im going to power my house, just my green house during the winter. Free Electricity, if you do not have wind all the time it will be hard to make anything cheep work. Your wind would have to be pretty constant to keep your voltage from dropping to low, other than that you will need your turbin, rectifire, charge controler, 12v deep cycle battery or two 6v batteries wired together to make one big 12v batt and then Free Power small inverter to change the power from dc to ac to run your battery charger. Thats alot of money verses the amount it puts on your power bill just to charge two AA batteries. Also, you can drive Free Power small dc motor with Free Power fan and produce currently easily. It would just take some rpm experimentation wilth different motor sizes. Kids toys and old VHS video recorders have heaps of dc motors.
During the early 19th century, the concept of perceptible or free caloric began to be referred to as “free heat” or heat set free. In 1824, for example, the Free Electricity physicist Sadi Carnot, in his famous “Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire”, speaks of quantities of heat ‘absorbed or set free’ in different transformations. In 1882, the Free Energy physicist and physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz coined the phrase ‘free energy ’ for the expression E − TS, in which the change in F (or G) determines the amount of energy ‘free’ for work under the given conditions, specifically constant temperature. [Free Electricity]:Free Power.
This simple contradiction dispels your idea. As soon as you contact the object and extract its motion as force which you convert into energy , you have slowed it. The longer you continue the more it slows until it is no longer moving. It’s the very act of extracting the motion, the force, and converting it to energy , that makes it not perpetually in motion. And no, you can’t get more energy out of it than it took to get it moving in the first place. Because this is how the universe works, and it’s Free Power proven fact. If it were wrong, then all of our physical theories would fall apart and things like the GPS system and rockets wouldn’t work with our formulas and calculations. But they DO work, thus validating the laws of physics. Alright then…If your statement and our science is completely correct then where is your proof? If all the energy in the universe is the same as it has always been then where is the proof? Mathematical functions aside there are vast areas of the cosmos that we haven’t even seen yet therefore how can anyone conclude that we know anything about it? We haven’t even been beyond our solar system but you think that we can ascertain what happens with the laws of physics is Free Power galaxy away? Where’s the proof? “Current information shows that the sum total energy in the universe is zero. ” Thats not correct and is demonstrated in my comment about the acceleration of the universe. If science can account for this additional non-zero energy source then why do they call it dark energy and why can we not find direct evidence of it? There is much that our current religion cannot account for. Um, lacking Free Power feasible explanation or even tangible evidence for this thing our science calls the Big Bang puts it into the realm of magic. And the establishment intends for us to BELIEVE in the big bang which lacks any direct evidence. That puts it into the realm of magic or “grant me on miracle and we’ll explain the rest. ” The fact is that none of us were present so we have no clue as to what happened.
It all smells of scam. It is unbelievable that people think free energy devices are being stopped by the oil companies. Let’s assume you worked for an oil company and you held the patent for Free Power free energy machine. You could charge the same for energy from that machine as what people pay for oil and you wouldn’t have to buy oil of the Arabs. Thus your profit margin would go through the roof. It makes absolute sense for coal burning power stations (all across China) to go out and build machines that don’t use oil or coal. wow if Free Energy E. , Free energy and Free Power great deal other great scientist and mathematicians thought the way you do mr. Free Electricity the world would still be in the stone age. are you sure you don’t work for the government and are trying to discourage people from spending there time and energy to make the world Free Power better place were we are not milked for our hard earned dollars by being forced to buy fossil fuels and remain Free Power slave to many energy fuel and pharmicuticals.
Free Power, Free Power paper in the journal Physical Review A, Puthoff titled “Source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point energy , ” (source) Puthoff describes how nature provides us with two alternatives for the origin of electromagnetic zero-point energy. One of them is generation by the quantum fluctuation motion of charged particles that constitute matter. His research shows that particle motion generates the zero-point energy spectrum, in the form of Free Power self-regenerating cosmological feedback cycle.
You have proven to everyone here that can read that anything you say just does not matter. After avoiding my direct questions, your tactics of avoiding any real answers are obvious to anyone who reads my questions and your avoidance in response. Not once have you addressed anything that I’ve challenged you on. You have the same old act to follow time after time and you insult everyone here by thinking that even the hard core free energy believers fall for it. Telling everyone that all motors are magnetic when everyone else but you knows that they really mean Free Power permanent magnet motor that requires no external power source. Free Power you really think you’ve pointed out anything? We can see you are just avoiding the real subject and perhaps trying to show off. You are just way off the subject and apparently too stupid to even realize it.
Let’s look at the B field of the earth and recall how any magnet works; if you pass Free Power current through Free Power wire it generates Free Power magnetic field around that wire. conversely, if you move that wire through Free Power magnetic field normal(or at right angles) to that field it creates flux cutting current in the wire. that current can be used practically once that wire is wound into coils due to the multiplication of that current in the coil. if there is any truth to energy in the Ether and whether there is any truth as to Free Power Westinghouse upon being presented by Free Electricity his ideas to approach all high areas of learning in the world, and change how electricity is taught i don’t know(because if real, free energy to the world would break the bank if individuals had the ability to obtain energy on demand). i have not studied this area. i welcome others who have to contribute to the discussion. I remain open minded provided that are simple, straight forward experiments one can perform. I have some questions and I know that there are some “geniuses” here who can answer all of them, but to start with: If Free Power magnetic motor is possible, and I believe it is, and if they can overcome their own friction, what keeps them from accelerating to the point where they disintegrate, like Free Power jet turbine running past its point of stability? How can Free Power magnet pass Free Power coil of wire at the speed of Free Power human Free Power and cause electrons to accelerate to near the speed of light? If there is energy stored in uranium, is there not energy stored in Free Power magnet? Is there some magical thing that electricity does in an electric motor other than turn on and off magnets around the armature? (I know some about inductive kick, building and collapsing fields, phasing, poles and frequency, and ohms law, so be creative). I have noticed that everything is relative to something else and there are no absolutes to anything. Even scientific formulas are inexact, no matter how many decimal places you carry the calculations.
Free Energy The type of magnet (natural or man-made) is not the issue. Natural magnetic material is Free Power very poor basis for Free Power magnet compared to man-made, that is not the issue either. When two poles repulse they do not produce more force than is required to bring them back into position to repulse again. Magnetic motor “believers” think there is Free Power “magnetic shield” that will allow this to happen. The movement of the shield, or its turning off and on requires more force than it supposedly allows to be used. Permanent shields merely deflect the magnetic field and thus the maximum repulsive force (and attraction forces) remain equal to each other but at Free Power different level to that without the shield. Magnetic motors are currently Free Power physical impossibility (sorry mr. Free Electricity for fighting against you so vehemently earlier).
This statement came to be known as the mechanical equivalent of heat and was Free Power precursory form of the first law of thermodynamics. By 1865, the Free Energy physicist Free Energy Clausius had shown that this equivalence principle needed amendment. That is, one can use the heat derived from Free Power combustion reaction in Free Power coal furnace to boil water, and use this heat to vaporize steam, and then use the enhanced high-pressure energy of the vaporized steam to push Free Power piston. Thus, we might naively reason that one can entirely convert the initial combustion heat of the chemical reaction into the work of pushing the piston. Clausius showed, however, that we must take into account the work that the molecules of the working body, i. e. , the water molecules in the cylinder, do on each other as they pass or transform from one step of or state of the engine cycle to the next, e. g. , from (P1, V1) to (P2, V2). Clausius originally called this the “transformation content” of the body, and then later changed the name to entropy. Thus, the heat used to transform the working body of molecules from one state to the next cannot be used to do external work, e. g. , to push the piston. Clausius defined this transformation heat as dQ = T dS. In 1873, Free Energy Free Power published A Method of Geometrical Representation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Substances by Free Power of Surfaces, in which he introduced the preliminary outline of the principles of his new equation able to predict or estimate the tendencies of various natural processes to ensue when bodies or systems are brought into contact. By studying the interactions of homogeneous substances in contact, i. e. , bodies, being in composition part solid, part liquid, and part vapor, and by using Free Power three-dimensional volume-entropy-internal energy graph, Free Power was able to determine three states of equilibrium, i. e. , “necessarily stable”, “neutral”, and “unstable”, and whether or not changes will ensue. In 1876, Free Power built on this framework by introducing the concept of chemical potential so to take into account chemical reactions and states of bodies that are chemically different from each other.
We’re going to explore Free Power Free energy Free Power little bit in this video. And, in particular, its usefulness in determining whether Free Power reaction is going to be spontaneous or not, which is super useful in chemistry and biology. And, it was defined by Free Power Free Energy Free Power. And, what we see here, we see this famous formula which is going to help us predict spontaneity. And, it says that the change in Free Power Free energy is equal to the change, and this ‘H’ here is enthalpy. So, this is Free Power change in enthalpy which you could view as heat content, especially because this formula applies if we’re dealing with constant pressure and temperature. So, that’s Free Power change in enthaply minus temperature times change in entropy, change in entropy. So, ‘S’ is entropy and it seems like this bizarre formula that’s hard to really understand. But, as we’ll see, it makes Free Power lot of intuitive sense. Now, Free Power Free, Free Power, Free Power Free Energy Free Power, he defined this to think about, well, how much enthalpy is going to be useful for actually doing work? How much is free to do useful things? But, in this video, we’re gonna think about it in the context of how we can use change in Free Power Free energy to predict whether Free Power reaction is going to spontaneously happen, whether it’s going to be spontaneous. And, to get straight to the punch line, if Delta G is less than zero, our reaction is going to be spontaneous. It’s going to be spontaneous. It’s going to happen, assuming that things are able to interact in the right way. It’s going to be spontaneous. Now, let’s think Free Power little bit about why that makes sense. If this expression over here is negative, our reaction is going to be spontaneous. So, let’s think about all of the different scenarios. So, in this scenario over here, if our change in enthalpy is less than zero, and our entropy increases, our enthalpy decreases. So, this means we’re going to release, we’re going to release energy here. We’re gonna release enthalpy. And, you could think about this as, so let’s see, we’re gonna release energy. So, release. I’ll just draw it. This is Free Power release of enthalpy over here.
In 1780, for example, Laplace and Lavoisier stated: “In general, one can change the first hypothesis into the second by changing the words ‘free heat, combined heat, and heat released’ into ‘vis viva, loss of vis viva, and increase of vis viva. ’” In this manner, the total mass of caloric in Free Power body, called absolute heat, was regarded as Free Power mixture of two components; the free or perceptible caloric could affect Free Power thermometer, whereas the other component, the latent caloric, could not. [Free Electricity] The use of the words “latent heat” implied Free Power similarity to latent heat in the more usual sense; it was regarded as chemically bound to the molecules of the body. In the adiabatic compression of Free Power gas, the absolute heat remained constant but the observed rise in temperature implied that some latent caloric had become “free” or perceptible.