Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Subject: 11:11:11 How 2 Miracles of Science can END the MYTH
Regarding the NEED for the War in Iraq, Syria, Iran etc. etc. & END GLOBAL TERRORISM Right this instant TODAY...!
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, November 11, 2014 11:07 am
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
"Michael Steinitz" <[email protected]>, "James Kirtley" <[email protected]>, "Wolfgang
Ketterle"<[email protected]>, [email protected], "J. hin" <[email protected]>,
"Nathaniel Lasry" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "John Francis"
<[email protected]>, "The Estate" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Tyler
Hamilton" <[email protected]>, "Richard Syrett" <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], "RCMP CANADIAN NATIONAL
SECURITY" <[email protected]>, "Leslie Virany" <[email protected]>
Hello All,
There is a scientific myth which is being mimicked by all scientists without any independent
thought which states that:
FREE WORK CAN AND IS BE PERFORMED INSIDE ALL ELECTRIC
GENERATORS because,
"Free Torque (and free work) is being performed inside ALL electric
generators without ANY energy being present whatsoever."
Yes it's true... and this myth stems from a faulty Newtonian Mechanical Physics application
where electric generators are concerned suggesting that;
"only electric generators can produce torque without energy."
The 1st miracle of science is that this faulty perception has existed for so long
even though it is so untrue and obviously faulty to any average person but NOT to
you...
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived
and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears.
We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations.
We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." ~ John F. Kennedy
The 2nd miracle of science will be if you learned humans take the necessary steps
required to correct this faulty perception - step out of your comfort zones and help
save the planet Earth... because NO one else can or will...
Please find below an email exchange that could have been written by any one of you
scientists (indeed ALL of you) who have allowed your scientific curiosity to be replaced by a
bureaucratic path of least resistance.
What is being discussed is how science proposes that: torque can and is being produced
inside an electric generator without any energy. (the "free torque" relates to the free counter-electromotive-torque produced inside all electric generators for free without energy... that all scientists hold to be true)
Which would be like getting something for nothing or a free lunch i.e. FREE WORK (free
torque) being performed without any energy...
Kind regards
Thane
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund
Burke
11:11:11 How 2 Miracles of Science can END the MYTH Regarding the NEED for the
War in Iraq, Syria, Iran etc. etc. TODAY...!
Dear Mimic,
Well that certainly got you all bent out of shape! Calm down...it's not like you haven't been
challenged or criticized before. I didn't say anything you haven't heard before either.
Sorry not bent out of shape at all - shouldn't have used caps... and I know I've heard it all
before and it's all wrong...
Here is what mainstream science (and you) are incorrectly saying saying since the genesis
of electricity discovery.
1. If you turn the lug nut on your car's wheels to the left it requires torque and energy.
2. But if you turn them to the right it requires torque but no energy is needed to
produce this torque.
3. ... and when and electric generator produces an electromotive-torque it does
so in the absence of energy...
4. So all electric generators produce torque (without requiring any energy).
5. But energy IS required to produce a torque in every other system on the
planet but NOT in inside electrical generators (how convenient!)
I don't have to be an EE, PhD or otherwise to question that.
Agreed you don't have to be a PhD or EE to know that:
in order to produce torque energy IS required...
Why do you persist in believing that it is possible to; produce torque without
energy - when you know (by simple common sense) that it isn't true...?
It is also true that I may be intimating that you don't know how to adequately explain the
experimental results that you and many others have observed, because that may well be
true.
I am not intimidated at all and I certainly DO know how to explain that torque (in any
direction) requires energy and so does the scientific community they have all been
doing it for years since Newton's time.
The problem is the scientific community (and you as well) blatantly ignores it's own
laws of physics when it says,
"that an electric generator's on load induced electromagnetic counter torque is produced in the absence of energy."
HERE IS WHERE SCIENCE GOT IT ALL WRONG... (ready :-)
Science equates the flow of current with the flow of water and this has always been totally
wrong.
Imagine a hand crank on the water pump analogy below...
1. As the resistance in the pipe increases, 2. the water current flow rate decreases 3. and it gets harder and harder to turn the pump handle until at
4. INFINITE RESISTANCE all pumping action and current flow ceases and it is 5. impossible to turn the pump handle.
Now imagine equating the battery pictured below with a hand cranked electric generator in
the very same scenario...
1. AS THE RESISTANCE IN THE WIRE INCREASES,
2. THE ELECTRICAL CURRENT FLOW RATE DECREASES
3. AND IT GETS EASIER AND EASIER TO TURN THE GENERATOR CRANK
HANDLE UNTIL AT
4. INFINITE RESISTANCE ALL CURRENT FLOW CEASES AND IT IS 5. EASIEST TO TURN THE PUMP HANDLE.
Science got it ALL wrong when it:
1. INCORRECTLY equated electrical current flow in a wire with
2. water flow in a pipe and
3. incorrectly equated an electrical system at the genesis of electricity
discovery with
4. Newtonian Mechanics because it was all they knew at the time...
In an electrical system:
1. THE MOST ENERGY IS REQUIRED to crank an electric generator when
the electrical current flow rate magnitude is MAXIMUM
2. and easiest when the current flow rate magnitude is MAXIMUM.
Whereas in a mechanical system:
1. the most energy is required to crank a pump when the water current flow rate
is minimal
2. and easiest when the water current flow rate is maximum.
OK SO WHY IS THE MAXIMUM CRANKING ENERGY REQUIRED IN AN ELECTRICAL
GENERATING SYSTEM WHEN THE ELECTRIC CURRENT FLOW RATE IS
MAXIMUM?
Because:
Inside the electric generator energy is being created that produces an electromagnetic
torque which resists the cranking of the generator hand crank and makes it harder to turn.
(and everyone knows that energy is required to produce torque... )
The magnitude of counter-electromotive-torque produced by the generator is based on the
magnitude of current flow so the greater the magnitude of electrical current flow the greater the magnitude of the energy produced in the magnetic field around every current
bearing wire and the greater the magnitude of torque created. (and everyone knows that energy is required to
produce torque...)
So as the resistance in the wire approaches infinity it gets easier and easier to turn the
generator's hand crank...
But as the resistance in the pipe approaches infinity it gets harder and harder to turn the
pumps hand crank...
Science's Electrical / Water Analogy is incorrect and always has been...
I further suggest that talking about your invention as the answer to world conflict,
specifically, the conflict that revolves around oil, is detrimental to your very cause.
“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. ” ~ George W.
Bush
“The number of people killed by the sanctions in Iraq is greater than the total number of
people killed by all weapons of mass destruction in all of history.” ~ Noam Chomsky
“First Afghanistan, now Iraq.
So who's next? Syria? North Korea? Iran?
Where will it all end?'
If these illegal interventions are permitted to continue, the implication seems to be,
pretty soon, horror of horrors, no murderously repressive regimes might remain.” ~ Daniel
Kofman, A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq
“Thomas Jefferson once said:
'Of course the people don't want war.
But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader.
All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country.'
I think that was Jefferson.
Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering." ~ Jon Stewart at the New York Waldorf-Astoria,
June 6, 2006
You may be unaware of how radical you really sound, at least when you write.
IF PEACE IS A "RADICAL" IDEA THEN I AM COMPLETELY UTTERLY AND TOTALLY
RADICAL...
I am still interested in a demo...I just wanted to see one that will be readily viewed by
others as conclusive.
Everything above is conclusive and has been viewed by others as so... that's not the problem. In closing, I wasn't aware of a journal publication. What journal? I'd like to review that. Read any physics text book regarding electric generators, Lenz's Law, Work Energy Principle etc.
PS. I am not the enemy.
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and
dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears.
We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations.
We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
~ John F. Kennedy
The reason for the war in
Iraq. Oil flowing to Israel. This secret pipeline is buried deep underground and
encased in cement
DC Circuit Water Analogy: http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/watcir.html
In a direct current (DC) electrical circuit, the voltage (V in volts) is an expression of the
available energy per unit charge which drives the electric current (I in amperes) around a
closed circuit.
Increasing the resistance (R in ohms) will proportionately decrease the current which may
be driven through the circuit by the voltage.
Each quantity and each operational relationship in a battery-operated DC circuit has a direct
analog in the water circuit.
The nature of the analogies can help develop an understanding of the quantities in basic
electric circuits.
In the water circuit, the pressure P drives the water around the closed loop of pipe at a
certain volume flowrate F.
If the resistance to flow R is increased, then the volume flowrate decreases proportionately.
You may click any component or any relationship to explore the the details of the analogy
with a DC electric circuit.
WORK - ENERGY - POWER:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html#wep
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotwe.html
TORQUE:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/torq.html#torq
TORQUE AS A VECTOR PRODUCT:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vctorq.html#vvc6
Work
refers to an
activity involving a force and
movement in the directon of the force. A force of
20 newtons pushing an object 5 meters
in the direction of the force does 100 joules of
work.
Energy
is the capacity
for doing work. You must have energy to
accomplish work - it is like the "currency" for
performing work. To do 100 joules of work,
you must expend 100
joules of energy.
Power
is the rate of
doing work or the rate of using energy, which
are numerically the same. If you do 100 joules of
work in one second (using 100 joules of
energy), the power is 100
watts.
Work-Energy Principle
The change in the kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on
the object.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ReGenX Input vs Output...
Date: Mon, November 10, 2014 6:38 pm
Hello Thane,
Well that certainly got you all bent out of shape! Calm down...it's not like you haven't been
challenged or criticized before. I didn't say anything you haven't heard before either.
I am not equipped to debate you on motor/generator theory/technology, or many other
topics either. That's not the point. The point is that I have read your writings and heard
your words directly about "energy creation" and INFINITE EFFICIENCY and I don't have to
be an EE, PhD or otherwise to question that. It is also true that I may be intimating that
you don't know how to adequately explain the experimental results that you and many
others have observed, because that may well be true. Either way, the proof is in the
pudding...that is a product that clearly does what you claim and sells.
I further suggest that talking about your invention as the answer to world conflict,
specifically, the conflict that revolves around oil, is detrimental to your very cause. You
may be unaware of how radical you really sound, at least when you write.
I am still interested in a demo...I just wanted to see one that will be readily viewed by
others as conclusive. In closing, I wasn't aware of a journal publication. What journal? I'd
like to review that.
PS. I am not the enemy.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mimic,
My comments in CAPS BELOW... just delete this email if you don't like debating facts...
Thane,
If what you were claiming to do was to eliminate phases of counter-torque in a gen that
would be one thing, but you actually claim to make energy.
1) NOT ELIMINATE BUT REVERSE.
2) I DON'T CLAIM TO MAKE ENERGY... I CLAIM THAT:
WHEN AN ELECTRIC IS PLACED ON LOAD A COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE TORQUE IS
PRODUCED AND
TORQUE IS WORK AND WORK REQUIRES ENERGY IN ANY DIRECTION.
IN ORDER FOR TORQUE TO EXIST THERE MUST BE ENERGY BEING PRODUCED
SOMEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM.
THE ENERGY IN THE CLOSED SYSTEM (ELECTRIC GENERATORS) THAT DOES THE WORK
CREATING THE COUNTER-TORQUE COMES FROM THE MAGNETIC FIELD "ENVIRONMENT"
THAT IS PRODUCED AROUND ALL CURRENT BEARING WIRES.
The only place for energy to come from in a close system is from the environment (or the
materials in the system that have stored energy that came form the environment).
MAGNETIC FIELD ENVIRONMENT.
There is only energy conversion, not creation...at least for us mere mortals anyway.
IF THAT IS (REALLY) TRUE THEN GENERATORS WOULDN'T PRODUCE AT COUNTER-TORQUE
WHEN PLACED ON-LOAD AND YET THEY DO.
SO IF ENERGY ISN'T BEING CREATED TO PRODUCE THIS COUNTER-TORQUE THEN IT IS
ENERGY FREE TORQUE WHICH CAN'T BE POSSIBLE.
PRIOR TO THE DEMO - PLEASE SHOW ME TORQUE WITHOUT ENERGY AND I'LL YIELD - BUT
YOU NOR ANY OTHER MERE MORTAL WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE IT SIMPLY ISN'T
POSSIBLE.
BTW GENERATOR COUNTER TORQUE AKA GENERATOR ARMATURE REACTION IS ALSO
REFERRED TO AS MOTOR ACTIN IN A GENERATOR...
I will view the demo with an open mind, but it will still be within the context of known
science.
ALL ELECTRIC GENERATORS THAT CREATE AN ON LOAD COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE
TORQUE (AND THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO DO SO) DO IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
KNOWN SCIENCE...
I sense there is an explanation for your empirical results, but I don't think a number of
science laws will need to be re-written to develop it.
YES THE EXPLANATION IS VERY SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS - SCIENCE GOT IT WRONG
AND ENERGY CAN AS IS BEING CREATED INSIDE ALL ELECTRIC GENERATORS WHEN THEY
ARE PLACED ON LOAD BECAUSE ENERGY IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A COUNTER
ELECTROMOTIVE TORQUE OR TORQUE IN ANY DIRECTION COUNTER OR OTHERWISE... NO
MERE MORTALS REQUIRED.
THE ONLY OTHER VIABLE OPTION IS TO CONCLUDE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE A
TORQUE WITHOUT ENERGY... AND THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN.
HOWEVER IN THE DEMO WHEN WE SEE A COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE TORQUE BEING
PRODUCED WE WILL HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS ENERGY BEING CREATED IN THE
SYSTEM AS WELL...
Mimic
PS. I would love to be proven wrong!
WELL CONSIDER YOUR WISH GRANTED THEN BECAUSE THE VALIDATION HAS ALREADY
BEEN ACHIEVED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, PEER
REVIEW, ADVERSARIAL REVIEW, INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY REPRODUCTION OF
RESULTS, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION AND JOURNAL PUBLICATION.
Cheers
Thane
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mimic,
I hope you are enjoying your weekend...
I had a short meeting with Chris today and he suggested that as part of your personal
evaluation you are interested is seeing the "input" vs "output."
Please allow me to state that the input to an electric generator is; the power in the drive
shaft which is the driveshaft TORQUE x driveshaft SPEED.
As we discussed previously a drive shaft that is:
1. Accelerating has positive torque and power and can drive a generator and deliver
generator output power.
2. Steady state = zero net torque and zero power and cannot drive a generator and
deliver generator output power without an increase in drive shaft power.
3. Decelerating has negative torque and less than zero power and
absolutely cannot drive a generator and deliver generator output power without an increase in drive shaft power.
What you will see in the pending demo is a drive shaft that is already decelerating on no-
load - meaning the drive shaft's net torque is negative (i.e. less than zero).
The torque graph below shows that the induction motor prime mover's maximum supplied
drive shaft torque occurs at 1600 RPM and decreases down to zero at synchronous speed at
3600 RPM.
This graph is very important for your analysis comprehension because we activate the
generator coils at 3000 RPM.
When the conventional generator coil is engaged;
1. the system decelerates and the generator output decreases,
2. the induction motor prime mover responds by drawing increased stator coil current
which you will see in the demo.
3. When the stator current increases the motor drive shaft supplied torque is
also increasing but you will see system deceleration because the load is selectively
designed to completely overpower the motor even at maximum stator current draw (actually the system will stall completely).
When the ReGenX generator coil is engaged;
1. the system accelerates and the generator's output increases BUT
2. the induction motor's drive shaft supplied torque is decreasing BUT
3. the NET drive shaft torque is increasing because the system is accelerating while the induction motor's input current drops...
Cheers
Thane
http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins/selfaccelerating-regenerative-
acceleration-generator-torque-analysis
http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins/magna-international-sept20-th-2009-generator-
torque-testing?related=1
Thane C. Heins
President & CEO
Potential +/- Difference Inc. R & D
"We generate solutions"
Email: [email protected]
YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/user/pdicanada1
Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=107557432&trk=tab_pro
slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins
Technology Endorsements & Industry Comments
"The [Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil current 45 degree]
time delays violate Newton's Third Law [and the Law of Conservation
of Energy] because even an infinitesimal time without the second
force violates the idea of force-pairs and hence of Newton's Third
Law." - Professor Nathaniel Lasry, Physics John Abbot College (2012)
"Of course it accelerates when a load is applied...! This represents
several new chapters in physics, that is why we are consulting MIT."
-Dr. Habash, University of Ottawa (2007)
"I saw it. It's real. Now I'm just trying to figure it out. To my mind
this is unexpected and new, and it's worth exploring all the possible
advantages once you're convinced it's a real effect."
-Markus Zahn, Ph.D., M.I.T. Professor of Electromagnetics and Electrical Systems
(2007)
"A number of your experiments are not lying in the field of Maxwellian
electrodynamics? That is fascinating! From the mathematical point of
view what's going on in your experiments is the break of SO3
symmetry in fundamental tensor of Yang Mills equations that makes it
obvious to see the flaws if Maxwell electrodynamics. I will inform you
on any progress that i'll make along with reports."
-Dr. Evstigneev N.M., Leading Scientist, Department of Chaotic
Dynamics, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of
Science (2009)
"Your claims seem to violate the law of conservation of energy and
Maxwell's equations of electro-magnetics." I will send you a short
proposal, including my plan of work, estimate of cost, etc. Then we
can sign a short agreement and proceed."
-Mehrdad (Mark) Ehsani, Ph.D., P.E., F.IEEE, F.SAE, Robert
M.Kennedy Professor & Director, Power Electronics and Motor
Drives Laboratory & Advanced Vehicle Systems Research
Program, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
Texas A&M University (2008)
"This is absolutely fascinating stuff you are doing!"
-Joseph Shin, Electricity and Magnetism Professor, Concordia
University (2011)
"If possible would like to meet with you to discuss your approach to
the Association and of course to get a better feel about the physics
behind your invention. I would still like to see what you are doing and
perhaps we can include some of your material on our website
newsletter?"
-David Mann, Canadian Association for the Advancement of
Science (2009)
"Thane, Your Press Release was most interesting to me as a physicist
and an engineer. The level of technical detail was adequate to tell
me that you probably have made a very significant advance in
applied physics and in safely and successfully handling a new source
of electric power. Congratulations!"
-Dr. Stanley Townsend, University of Toronto & Former
Managing Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics (2006)
"As I'm concerned this is a work of GENIUS (and a rather major one
at that)."
- Les Virany BSEE MIT Former USPTO examiner and Registered
Patent Agent
"This is the Holy grail for generators."
-NRC Scientist Doug Hartwick at Ottawa University (2009)
"As a mechanical engineer I'm here to explain how it works and why it
works. And it does work; over a dozen of us were witness to that
last Monday(as well as a film crew--filming in 3D no less!)."
-Mike Brace, Tech Editor EV World (2012)
"This is a freakin' game changer!"
-Mike Elwood, Chairman Electric Mobility Canada at Ottawa
University (2009)
"We are interested in using the ReGenX technology in our LinkVolt
Project to reduce roadside refueling."
-Neil Young, LincVolt Project (2011)
"The magnetics lab here at Goddard expressed some interest in
having you come down to do a colloquium."
-NASA (2008)
"We really are more interested in developing its use and application
for military power requirements."
-US Air Force (2009)
"I have asked Mr. Gilles Brassard, A/Director, Spacecraft Payload
here at the Canadian Space Agency to look at your technologies and
to visit your laboratory."
-Canadian Space Agency (2009)
"I am writing to ask you to submit what you feel would be an
appropriate document to describe your regenerative acceleration
technology for circulation to our Committee members."
-Al Cormier, Executive Director Electric Mobility Canada (2009)
"You seem to have made an interesting discovery. Our internal
physics experts review this information and have determined that it is
very interesting work."
-Mike Simpson, Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain
Institute (2009)
"Thanks for providing technical information. If the effect of your
invention is really true, I am sure there will be strong needs in the
market."
-Nissan Japan (2012)
"I would like to know why you are not the toast of the town... this
technology can be offered as a range extension option to our
clients."
-Thomas Fritz, Vice President Electric Vehicle Operations, CODA
Automotive (2012)
"The technology looks really interesting and is revolutionary. I would
like to learn more about the technology. Is it possible to organize a
demo or a lecture in the USA?"
-Chrysler Electrified Powertrains (2012)
"This sounds interesting. I'd like you to connect with our Fuel
Economy Learning Program manager, to schedule a time for you to
come in and share the technology with us. We need to know more
about the Physics behind it."
-General Motors (2012)
"It would be fitting for the inventor of the automobile to be first with
your revolutionary technology and for me to play a role in that would
be awesome!"
-Mercedes-Benz (2012)
"Would you be willing to contribute an article on this technology to
the Journal for Engineering and Public Policy?"
-Donald Wallace, Executive Director Ontario Centre for
Engineering and Public Policy (2009)
"When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we
likely will have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetism."
-Mike Brace EV World Tech Editor (2010)
