Subject: Re: [FG]: Re: Re: [FG]: Free Energy Ethics

From: Charles Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:07:49 -0700 (PDT)

This is all ture.  The patent office exists to enhance the development of
technology.  "The Office" offers you the protection of "The Office" for
seven years in exchange for the right to publish the invention.  

So

A patent does NOT protect an invention.  Only smart marketing and speed
to market can make you money.  BTW I take offence at this statement from
a previous post.
____________________
If your invention ruins the life of one investor for every real person 
it helps, I'd have no qualms about it. Today's business ethics is that 
it's ok to screw the common people if your investors can gain another 
penny. There are no morals in free trade capitalism.
____________________

Here is why.

An invester is a real person, at least I like to believe I am.  Todays
business ethics are constantly violated by businessmen with poor personal
ethics. There are goodguys and badguys everywhere.  We are not out to
screw the common, rather; we are the common. The morals in free trade are
simple and correct >>  I have something you want and if you are willing
to trade me something for it we have free trade.  Without free trade
there is no advancement becasue there would be no point in producing
something. For example.  Withought comercial interest...
   >Bell's invention would be a cute novelty
   >Ford would have never developed the assembly line & low cost
automobile
   >No Internet
   >No space program
   >No computers
   >No electricity
   >No newspapers
   >No TV
   >No... no...  no...

Sure life would be much simpler and we would not be having this
discussion.

The secret to advancement is comercial invalvment.
The Patent office does not protect your secrets, only your comercial
interests and only as far as the athority of that office reaches. 

The solution...  Stop trying to be a get rich quick hero and just do the
right thing.  If you make a buck that's cool too.

The Right Thing:

As it stands to date. Nobody has produced any provable over-unity device.
Don't stop trying, but don't pour your life's savings into it. It is
great to chace after the "impossible" maybe with a positave result but
you have to be responcible about it and understand that it may take many
many years to become usable. We are running out of energy and need to act
now. 
  >Roll back the thermostat.
  >Use more effecent lighting. 
  >Get rid of the SUV.
  >Install alternitave energy solutions in your home to suplement your
consumption
  >Invent new alternitaves. 

Again...  IF you make a buck along the way that's cool too.

Cheers!

--- [email-masked] wrote:
> You need to look at the patent laws. They are not really what you might
> think.
> 
> We have a couple issues here:
> 
> First
> ------
> The bulk of the patent describes the invention, usually to to point of
> building a working model, though your protection is limited to what you
> actually 'Claim'
> 
> Suppose you spend years developing a machine and due to whatever your
> claim is that crystal grown from 30% Ferric Cloride 70% Copper Sulphate
> will produce such and such. Fine. Now someone turns around and get the
> same result with with a crystal grown from Ferric Sulphate and Cupric
> Cloride. Guess what? They are free to manufacture it.
> 
> 
> Second
> -----------
> You make all the claims properly, FedEx the patent application in and
> announce the plans to the world that afternoon. Some sleezebag in
> Maryland gets your post, quickly draws up a patent and hand delivers it
> to the USPTO. Guess What? You loose and cannot profit from it because
> it is not *your* invention, it's the sleezebags. (Supposedly another
> individual applied for a telephone patent the same day as Bell, but
> later in the day. Both discovered it independently but only one won
> out)
> 
> Third
> ------
> You do everything right, are awarded the patent and hailed as a hero.
> Those affected by the patent criticize it, bad mouth it & you; debate
> for 15 years the economic impact and life continues to go on. Seventeen
> years later you haven't made dime while the 'Energy Companies' are now
> ramping up to produce it.
> 
> You'll be in the history books as the inventer but Shell and Exxon and
> BP will make the bucks. You'll never see a dime..
> 
> --
> 
> Patenting it and releasing it is still no guarantee that someone else
> will find an additional claim that'll screw you. 
> 
> Like the Hokey-Pokey, that's what it's all about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > From: "John Mount" <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: [FG]: Free Energy Ethics
> > 
> > 
> > > It all depends on what you want to do. If it works and you want to
> help
> > > humanity and not be the next Bill Gates then your best option is to
> release
> > > it to the world and patent it at the same time.
> > >
> > > If you release it and don't patent it you open up the possibility
> for
> > > someone else to patent it and totally screw you.
> > 
> > The question is - are their ways of getting protection and reward for
> > one's FE device other than a patent??
> 
> 
> 

Charles Ford
KC5-OWZ
[email-masked]
[email-masked] 

To be absolutely sure you make it past the "SpamGuard" you can simply include my ham-radio callsign (above) somewhere in the message body.  I have a filter set.

---

From: "dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:32:16 +1000

Hi all,

Can anyone here tell me how a transformer really works.  If the flux that 
links the secondary varies only within (inside) the core, it cannot actually 
"cut" the secondary winding.  It, then, doesn't come anywhere near the 
seconday.  If, though, the flux rises and falls through the hole in the 
middle, then this is leakage flux, and as much as possible is done to 
minimise this.  So if there is no flux actually cutting the winding... it is 
all in the core..., then, according to the way I learnt it, nothing can be 
induced in the secondary.

It seems I do not know much about this stuff called "magnetism" after all!

Something similar applies to current transformers (CT's).  The CT principle 
applies to most tong ammeters.  How come it does not matter where abouts the 
cable runs in the hole... how close to the steel it runs, or how far away 
from the steel (closest to the centre)... the current value measured is the 
same.  But if the flux is strongest closest to the cable, then the value 
read should vary.  I have a sneaking suspicion that even if the CT was 10 or 
100mtrs diameter, it would still read the same.  This effect over a distance 
seems to have little to do with the magnetic field.  In the words of one 
auspcious gentleman, why is it so?

Cheers,
Ralph

---

From: "Don Bangert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:28:33 -0700

Here are a couple of links related to "How does a transformer work?"...

    http://www.aelgroup.co.uk/hb/hb007.htm (Good)
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/askexperts/ae427.cfm (Better)
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/html/101basics/Module04/Output/
(Best)

It also helps to understand that a magnetic field encompasses a wire when
current is present. By increasing the number of wires where the current and
direction of wire are similar (i.e. in a coil) you concentrate the magnetic
field that is produced. By inserting a ferrous material into the core of the
coil, you further concentrate the magnetic field. A transformer is two or
more coils that share a common core. Also, a well-built transformer will
have (almost) a 1:1 power conversion factor.

Regards,
Don Bangert

---

From: peter kornev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:48:29 +0400

Hello.

---

From: "Ralph Dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:02:53 +1000

Don and all,

Many thanks for these great sites.  I am not sure I have really got my 
message across about transformers.  I have no problems with the field around 
one conductor affecting another.  Or one coil's field affecting another 
coil.  But when we add a core (which actually increases the flux produced by 
the primary by approximately 1000 times, rather than concentrating it), the 
flux is *in* the core - not outside of it cuttting the secondary winding. 
If it is all inside the core, then the sec. sort of sees it from a 
distance... somehow.

And with the Tong ammeter... if the flux is strongest closest to the wire, 
then the reading on the tong ammeter will change, depending on where the 
wire runs through the centre hole.  This does not happen.

Cheers,
RALPH

---

From: Zack Widup <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:29:04 -0500 (CDT)

Both the primary and secondary need to be wound on the core.  The magnetic 
flux cuts the secondary in exactly the same way it cuts the primary 
winding. If it got into the core from the primary, it has to produce an 
effect on the secondary also, as they are wound in exactly the same way, 
usually just a different number of turns.

Zack

---

From: "Ralph Dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:43:21 +1000

Zack,
We are taught by all who are wise that it "cuts"...  but if the flux inside 
the core is buckets full, compared to what is outside, and there is ideally 
none outside (flux outside the core is called "leakage flux" and is designed 
out... undesireable), then does the flux actually "cut" anything?  Your 
comment is correct in that the flux is said to "cut" the primary also; thus 
back emf.  But the same question remains.

I am not trying to play dumb here.  It is something that has mystified me 
for some years.

Cheers,
RALPH

Zack wrote:

 Zack

---

From: "jonfli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:57:51 -0500

Ralph and all,

Much confusion surrounds the true mechanism of transformer induction and we
still have much to learn! Years ago I located a paper on the web titled
"Power Flow in Transformers via the Poynting Vector" by J. Edwards and T.K.
Saha but have done a recent search and was unable to locate a current link.
Anyway, this paper explains and shows calculations for power transfer in
cored transformer configurations such as toroids, etc, using the Poynting
vector S. Although it may appear that "flux cutting" is the means for
transformer induction, it isn't. Until we understand the actual means of
induction, our free energy efforts will most likely be in vain.

A Google search will yield many papers on the subject of the Poynting vector
for power flow in transformers. Hope this helps!

Jon F.

> >> coil.  But when we add a core (which actually increases the flux
produced
> >> by
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.15 - Release Date: 4/16/2005
>
>

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005

---

From: a <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:23:02 -0700

To add to the confusion, Hooper's old papers on "Motional electric field"  (Rex
research.com should have them) discuss the 3 forms of induction (as he saw it),
'flux linking' , 'flux cutting' and 'motional', each with its own properties.
See also Aharonov-Bohm effect and role of  "A" vector potential and often quoted
(see Bearden , Excalibur Briefing references) patents that use a toroidal
transformer as a vector-potential antenna.

Alik S.

jonfli wrote:

snip

> Until we understand the actual means of

---

From: "Ralph Dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:24:37 +1000

Many thanks for all your help.  It is reassuring to hear that the answer (to 
how a transformer really works) has been sought after by greater minds, to 
no avail.  It kind of makes one feel a tad less stupid!  A pity there is 
just so much to learn.

Thanks, too, Alik for the site on rexresearch.com.  I had never come across 
it before.  I think I might surface again in thirty of forty years.

Cheers,
RALPH

---

From: Bob Paddock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:38:17 -0400

On Tuesday 19 April 2005 10:57 am, jonfli wrote:

> Years ago I located a paper on the web titled

http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~aupec/aupec00/edwards00.pdf

-- 
                          http://www.softwaresafety.net/
 http://www.unusualresearch.com/ http://www.bpaddock.com/

---

From: "jonfli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:11:45 -0500

Bob,

Thanks for the link! I highly recommend this paper for anyone doing FE
research. For example, would it be possible to wind a transformer in a
configuration that would allow an increase of the E field as compared to
conventional designs? Since the power flow or Poynting vector S=E x H, there
should be an increase in power flow and OU would be the result.

In doing research on the MEG with conventional winding techniques, one will
find a relatively large "leakage inductance" between the primaries or
control windings, and the secondaries. However, if both primaries and
secondaries are wound in vertical sections placed side by side instead of
the standard layered windings, the "leakage inductance" is nearly
non-existent in the same core configuration! Just an example of departure
from the norm.

Jon F.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Paddock" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FG]: Re: Re: How do transformers really work?

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005

---

From: peter kornev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 06:13:09 +0400

Hey sorry to interrupt your conversation. I was just wondering. The first time I have seen the devise with two magnets and a steel ball well the first thing that came to my mind is to close circuit it. Now am I only one to think about this idea or someone actually have tired this? I mean this is the first thing that comes to mind probably in every person and what no one tried? Or am I missing here something?