textfiles/bbs/KEELYNET/ENERGY/flexbil1.asc

______________________________________________________________________________
|  File Name      : FLEXBIL1.ASC     |  Online Date     :  12/26/95          |
|  Contributed by : Bill Beaty       |  Dir Category    :  ENERGY            |
|  From           : KeelyNet BBS     |  DataLine        :  (214) 324-3501    |
|           KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187         |
|        A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences      |
|              InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker)          |
|      Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The following is a response to the FLEXFLO files from the InterNet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: <billb@mail.eskimo.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:25 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>

To: Roamer <jon@globalone.net>
cc: keelynet@ix.netcom.com

Subject: Re: Keelynet's new files

On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Roamer wrote:

>  You should check out Keelynet for the most recent file updates.
>  Jerry Decker has compiled quite a few new and interesting files
>  pertaining to electrical devices. This is one text I thought
>  you should see.
>  This is the first time I've tried sending a file with a message,
>  so....

Hi, got the file.  But... unfortunately this has more to do with electricity
misconceptions than it does with free energy.  The author is mixed up about
the two different things which flow in wires, and believes he has found
something that violates energy conservation.  Nope.  I guess I come across as
a raving skeptic in the following!  Also, when I speak about "you" in the
following, I'm talking to anyone reading this, not to Mr. Roamer.

> > The first and most important principle of these circuits is the
    understanding
> > that a resistive 'Load' DOES NOT CONSUME electricity...

...but the word "electricity" has two contradictory definitions: Electric
Charge, and Electric Energy.  This causes problems.  Read this carefully.

Resistors consume "electric energy" at the same time that "electric charge"
flows through them and back out.  This is something like a fan being driven by
a fanbelt: the fan consumes energy and does work to stir the air, but at the
same time as the BELT flows "through" the fan's pully and is not consumed at
all.

The fanbelt is similar to the electrons in a circuit.  In the resistor and in
the fan, no energy flows *through* the devices, all the energy flows INTO the
devices and is consumed/converted.  See?

Electrons flow through things, while energy flows into things and is consumed.
Electrons are not consumed, and energy does not flow through things and back
out.

The situation with electric circuits is usually described as if it is strange
and mysterious, but it really is extremely similar to the fanbelt/fan setup.

The problem is that we use the word "electricity" to name both the "fanbelt"
part of a circuit and the "energy" part of a circuit.  This is a rotten
situation, and it leaves many people with the equivalent of the belief that
the rubber of the fanbelt is a form of energy which is consumed by the fan.

Sound too silly to believe?  Well, believing that fanbelts are made of pure
energy is the same as believing that electrons are a form of energy.  No,
electrons are matter.  Electrons in a circuit aren't created or destroyed,
they are simply pumped around and around in a circle.  A battery does not
supply electrons or store them.

A battery is a chemically powered electron pump.  Capacitors do not store
electrons, they pump them.  Every time an electron leaves a capacitor, another
comes in through the other wire at the same time, so the total amount of
electrons inside the device never change.  But, at the same time the energy in
the capacitor can be decreasing or increasing.  Electrons are not energy!

> > Nobody ever seems to notice the obvious contradiction between electricity
> > passing COMPLETELY THROUGH a load and electricity being CONSUMED WITHIN a
> > load. It has to be one or the other, not both.

...either that, or maybe there is something wrong with the word "electricity."
And while one thing is being consumed by the load, another separate thing is
flowing *through* the load.

Or to put it another way, "joules" and "coulombs" are the way we measure the
two flows of totally different entities in wires.  Joules per second are
watts, and coulombs per second are amperes.  Amps are not watts.  The same
high-wattage load can be designed to run on high voltage and low amperage, or
on low voltage and high amperage.

If you tell me that a load uses "lots of electricity," you've told me nothing,
because the word "electricity" is faulty, and I don't know if you're referring
to the quantity of electrons or to the quantity of energy.  An electrical load
can use 100 watts of energy flow but with almost no electron flow.  Or it can
use the same 100 watts of energy flow at an enormous electrons flow.

> > Resistive loads only slow down the current, they don't consume it. If they
> > did, your battery would last longer on devices that consumed more
> > electricity because the electrons would vanish inside the load and never
> > reach the positive pole of the battery. In the real world a circuit works
> > like this, one electron goes in, one electron comes out. That's just the
> > way it works.

Yes, this is right.

> > The FLEXFLO circuits are designed to hold a volume of electricity and
> > "pour" it from one bank of capacitors to another bank through a load.  If
> > the circuit in FLEXFLO2.GIF is constructed using standard grade
> > electrolytic capacitors, it should move approximately 3 to 4 times as much
> > electricity through the load area than what is actually drawn from the
> > battery. (based on actual circuit measurements and calculations.)

This is entirely conventional.  It is a well-known effect in AC systems.  A
similar thing happens when you power a 12v bulb with a 10-to-1 stepdown
transformer that's plugged into 120Vac.  The voltage is stepped down, while
the current is stepped up.

If you measure the current in this bulb, it will be TEN TIMES HIGHER THAN THE
CURRENT BEING DRAWN FROM THE WALL OUTLET!  Would you say that the transformer
magically creates ten times more "electricity?"  I hope not, because the
wattage going from the 120Vac outlet and into the bulb is the same all through
the system, even though the current and voltage are at different levels at
different places.

And for a free energy device, only the wattage is important, because wattage
is an amount of energy which flows over a time period.

<lots of calculations deleted, ending with:>

> >      Over-Unity output  =  3.815 coulombs   or   383% "efficiency"

No.

"Over Unity" is a measure of energy flow.  Not of coulombs or amperes.  Stepup
transformers can increase voltage, but we do not call them "over unity"
devices.  Stepdown transformers increase current (coulombs per second) but we
don't say "over unity."  The only time you should use the "o/u" word is when
discussing energy throughput.  The quantity of coulombs is unimportant if you
do not measure the wattage in and out of your device.

Another thought: if you wrap a superconductor wire around a magnet, connect
the ends of the wire together, then remove the magnet, you create a permanent
current circulating in the wire.  If you measured it, you would find coulombs
and coulombs flowing continuously through each part of the wire.  And this
continues forever.

Is it a neverending source of energy?  No, it is a spinning mass of matter.
If you try to tap the energy from a shorted superconductor coil, the current
will decrease to zero.  Same as with a flywheel: use it to do work, and the
flywheel slows and stops.

> > Since there is a fixed amount of potential loss per cycle, it would be
> > best to design a load that makes the most use of each charge cycle.

The above sentence holds the key: "potential loss."  If the flow of colombs
per second is constant, potential loss represents energy loss.

To create an overunity device, you must have INCREASING potential at constant
current.  You have to have voltage rises on each component which are greater
than the voltage drops.  You have to have excess, overunity wattage.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker )

Subject: Re: Keelynet's new files

To:  William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>

Hi Bill!  Thanks for the comments about the FlexFlo files....much of the
Flexflo info is from George Wisemans 'Energy Conserver' material and I posted
it AS RECEIVED.  There are questions I have with regard to the circuit, but on
weighing whether I (or anyone else) should hold back on posting it or just
putting it online and letting it take its course, I chose the latter.

Those questions led me to want to await verification (via KeelyNet users) of
some sort and is why I did not post the FLEXFLO material to you or other
InterNet contacts where it would wind up in A VERY GLOBAL FORUM and make it
subject to the propensity of many InterNet folks to flame it up FROM THE
START.

I learned a great deal from the MRA fiasco and will not repeat it in future.
It should NEVER have been posted on the InterNet (or mailed out to various
newsletters/magazines) until it had been SUCCESSFULLY duplicated by other
experimenters, which to date has NEVER HAPPENED (to my knowledge), despite all
comments that it has.  (I still get numerous phone calls reporting NO O/U
success even with MANY variations.)

What criteria determines duplication?  How about the inverse of
Puthoff/Littles or Frode Olsens report style...that is (basic);

  1)  equipment used
  2)  circuit layout
  3)  measurements taken at of power various points in tabular form
  4)  measurements of input and output in tabular form and totalled
  5)  measurements with various loads in tabular form

The wish to believe in a working O/U device got tangled up with a lot of spook
explanations (and claims) that did not bear out in the real world.  Learning
from the MRA experience, I felt it better to see what happened on Keelynet
FIRST with FLEXFLO, after others had played with the circuit and reported with
their own evaluations and ideas.  (as of 12/20, FLEXFLO appears to have at
least one duplication, by Dave Cahoon, as per the claim).

As to the COLDFISS, even though the inventor said he produced a continuous 200
Watts over 7 months, there have not been any confirmations YET (even Perrault
says no one has contacted him with a duplication).

Joel McClain in fact brought up a point about possible safety hazards from x-
rays or gamma emissions since it is a fission process.  I asked Bruce about
this and he said NO, HE HAD NOT TESTED FOR ANY KIND OF EMISSIONS.  But he
plans to check this out and will report on what he finds.

Rruce Perrault's kids don't have flippers and the family has no ill health so
he kind of doubts there is anything to worry about.  After all, he's been
working with these since at least 1988 and still no problems.

One of the problems I have with many of the InterNet UseNets and message
responses is the tendency to take issue with SEMANTICS, rather than the
CONCEPTS presented.

There is conceptual analysis and then there is analysis borne out by direct
experiment.  As I see it, it is up to THE INDIVIDUAL (reading the information)
to determine whether a particular plan or idea HAS MERIT before spending both
time and money on trying to duplicate it.

Some people just wait until others do it and report positive results
(successful duplication)....  Others are very gung ho and just jump right
in..in truth, I prefer the gung ho folks but mostly after they have discussed
or asked questions from their peers, questions of the inventor directly and
other relevant research.  This way, the chances of success are much greater.

Circuits and projects for ORTHODOX plans and schematics are EXPECTED to work
as claimed, and IDEALLY, claimed O/U, F/E and other type alternative projects
SHOULD also work as claimed.  However, as Bearden points out, we are all
breaking new ground and mistakes are INVEITABLE.

On discovering the mistake, honest people of integrity will post the details
of how the project went awry and was misinterpreted.  This way, people know
what happened and will look out for it in future experiments.  Look at the
events which surround the TOD.

One of the fears of many people I have spoken with or known has been that of
some kind of suppression.  To minimize it, they want to post their plans and
'get it out' before anything happens.  This can lead to half-baked ideas or
projects.  I get several of these a year that never make it online after the
inventor (or someone else) finds the error and sheepishly says 'never mind'.
Enthusiasm should not be allowed to overcome some kind of step by step,
scientific method, especially that of successful DUPLICATION.

Wouldn't it be nice to have one or more trusted friends who could verify the
experiment BEFORE posting it?  (Easily done on a local BBS without global
exposure until it had been confirmed...) And I think tables and diagrams
showing the results of the experiment, with equipment used, etc....should be
necessary in a well documented paper.  That, plus a caveat that this is the
response WE (the inventor or person duplicating the experiment) got, if it
interests you, please try to verify it using similar documentation and see if
you can get the same thing.

That is a reasonable approach to my way of thinking because there are no
claims, hidden agendas or esoteric theories being promoted, just a report on
an interesting experiment, even if it is the only working one SO FAR.....

As you know, Keelynet is NOT a global board and was not intended for everyone.
It has always been for people who are serious about this kind of research
(including biology/ecology/gravity, etc.) and wanting to help it come into
practical use through discussions which would lead to experiment and
subsequent reporting of results so that EVERYONE could learn.  With minimal
flames, and constructive comments or corrections as warranted.

Anyway, all the posted files are available as always, but I think a bit of
common sense towards their release in a VERY GLOBAL FORUM is warranted.  Bruce
Perrault called tonite and said JW McGinnis was upset with me because he heard
I had put out ALL of Perraults material on the InterNet....Bruce read the
newsletter and the COLDFISS file and thought it was JUST GREAT...he said ITS
was very well represented with two phones numbers, the planset number AND a
FAX number and price for ordering, with a RECOMMENDATION to order the FULL
set....this should get far more exposure....so I don't think JW has seen the
ONLY file that was posted, NOT the FULL planset.

I will call him next week and try to straighten this out....even though I
bought the plans from ITS, there was NEVER any intent to post them....only
after Bruce CALLED ME and we talked did he say that he wanted the plans out to
as many people as possible and gave me permission to post the info....which he
confirmed again tonite after reading the file...well, it seems to be a
misunderstanding....

As to FLEXFLO, there will be a lot more interesting information popping up in
1996 based on the interesting phone calls and email that I've been getting
here lately.  Looks like this new spate of information is causing many of the
closet researchers to want to throw in their two cents before it is all laid
out and no one ever hears of them because they sat on the information.  It's
really great to see it happening.
...............................seeya and Happy Holidays!...>>> Jerry/KeelyNet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------