 |
There are currently, 340 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Negative Energy Guide
Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2002 @ 09:37:00 UTC by vlad
|
|
Tim Harwood writes: In 1992-1993, Mr Robert Adams of New Zealand put a working free energy device into the public domain. Since then several people have replicated it, but it is one of those situations where everyone stands around waiting for someone else to do something. Tim Harwood has for the first time, placed a detailed guide to construction into the public domain, and as a recent development, a wholly original solid state derivation of the Adams motor besides. It is hoped with the widespread distribution of the underlying theory behind negative energy manifestation, combined with simple how to device construction guides, a revolution in science can now rapidly be ushered in.
The file is too large to be posted in this box.
It can be downloaded from this attachment.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Sunday, May 26, 2002 @ 22:49:00 UTC | | vlad (vlad@zpenergy.com) writes: Tim, The file is excellent and I hope people
will step up and help to move this research forward. You're not the first one who challenges my statement in the Remember
box that: "As of TODAY, still NO PROVEN DEVICE that harnesses USEFUL POWER from the ZPE." In my opinion, for the statement to
be removed the two attributes "Proven" and "Useful" must be met.
Even though for you and many other experimenters who
have build/seen these devices working, the proof is clear, in reality, for the rest of the people, the proof can only come in
two ways: The scientist will officially admit these claims are true (measurements) or a device is produced commercially and
people can use it and laugh at the skeptics that say it doesn't exist! Of course, the power produced must be useful, because
toys that run cold and forever are nice, but nobody cares.
Don't get me wrong; these toys are important to prove the
concept and stimulate the scientific world, but from a practical perspective, we have to go after the proof as stated above
to trigger the new energy revolution and for you, or any other inventor for that matter who succeeds, to get the Nobel
prize!
|
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Monday, May 27, 2002 @ 06:14:00 UTC | Tim Harwood (timharwood@usa.net) writes: Skepticism is fine so long as it is
not excessive. Not everyone who has tried to replicate the motor template I have offered has been successful. However,
several have been successful, and some people getting results have now been kind enough to submit pictures. This has added
enormous credibility to my previous statements, since with work and application, 100% independent replications are now
clearly shown to be possible. What I have designed is basically the logical cut down simplified 'home edition' of the Adams
motor, and perfecting the bizarre and non standard rotor / stator geometry was very important. In this respect I simply did
what Mr Adams informed me was required (4:1 clearly stated in the patent and Nexus articles) and built it as stated.
As
for the POD unit, when properly adjusted is it basically the old Sweet SQM / VTA unit reborn, but simpler, cheaper, more
reliable, and able to use cheap standard off the shelf Radio Shack ceramic magnets, with no 'treatment' required. It is a
very exciting technology that may become the basis for all energy research going forwards. Again, while not everyone gets
results, there are people out there who seem very happy with their independently constructed POD units. The replication 'hit
rate' for these experiments, while certainly not 100%, seems to be far ahead of anything else yet tried. And as I always
say, why not try building both? Since the underlying physics is identical, if you can just get either the motor or POD to
work, you will probably learn enough to make the other device work also.
Finally, I agree with the two conditions set
'proven' and 'useful.' The proof will come as yet more replications stack up above many already claimed. As for the
'useful,' given the astonishingly low cost base of POD units, the lack of moving parts, and the 100% 'off the shelf Radio
Shack' nature of the device, I can not think of anything more useful then POD. It can be added as a simple $50 upgrade to
existing DC motors, hence no major round of new investment will be required to make use of it.
Tim. |
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Saturday, June 15, 2002 @ 14:11:00 UTC | | Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes: Tim,
', 'If you want people to take you seriously then you need to address
these
issues which I have posted in response to your claims on multiple
email
lists:
', '=========
What we need to
see from this group with regards to the POD is ', 'this:
1. Start with 2 batteries (or
capacitors), 1
charged, 1 discharged. ', '
2. Run the device off the charged
battery, using it to charge up the
discharged one.
3. Switch the
batteries. Repeat.
After a number of repetitions, they should end up with two fully
charged
(or very nearly so)
batteries. ', '
If they are getting OU this *should*
work... *Right*?
If this works (which I doubt) then the next step would be to perform a
comparative power test, or better yet, a calorimeter. A lot of OU
'disappears' when measured with highly
accurate instruments vs. cheap ", 'DMMs.
What we also need see from this group with
respect to endothermic
operation ('cold running') in Tim Harwood's Adams-type motor is
this:
1.
Isolate the item (transistor, coil, etc) to undergo
temperature measurement from all moving air produced by the
rotor. Also
isolate the ambient temperature thermometer/thermocouple. This needs to be
done because I
have read a report on another list of an experimenter observing a
temperature drop which disappeared after he isolated
his probe from the air
being moved by his motor.
2. If using a thermocouple instead
of a mercury
thermometer, move the item to be measured FAR AWAY from the coil,
moving magnets and power source. This is because
another experimenter has
noted that thermocouple measurements can be made highly inaccurate by a moving
magnetic
field!
3. Measure the ambient room temperature and
the item BEFORE starting the motor.
Amazingly, no one has even done this ', 'yet!
4. Take measurements over TIME.
5.
Switch the thermometers and repeat to help account for margin of
error.
If results are achieved, then
further testing with more
sensitive thermometers is in order. One would expect a large temperature
difference
from Tim Harwood's reports ( 'It runs stone cold' etc., ad
infinitum).
========
', 'Without addressing these issues, there
is NO EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
WHATSOEVER for your claims, only your 'say
so'.
Your theories are another matter, as anyone familiar with the material of
Adspen, Bearden and Dragone can clearly see you've simply plagiarized from them
and cobbled together an assortment
of bits and pieces from their works.
Dave Narby
(aka Dave N.) |
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 @ 14:31:00 UTC | | Tim Harwood (timharwood@usa.net) writes: Dave, the tests you demand were
performed by an independant third party many months ago, as you well
know. http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/podr1.html', '
What is your agenda is spreading such falsehoods? Who
pays you to do this? Exxon-Mobil? You seem to spend all day every day sending me abusive emails. You should get out
more. Tim. |
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 @ 16:04:00 UTC | | Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes:
Tim,
',
'Unless the page you referenced has been updated as of 6:45
PM EST, anyone can see that
there is NO test posted there like the one I
described earlier.
I find it ironic that you accuse me of falsehoods when you
so blatantly indulge in them yourself. I am
confident at this point that
it IS a falsehood (and not a simple misunderstanding) as
this is
the fifth or sixth time I have requested this test be done. The
public record on JLN's Yahoo group list, the Sweet
VTA list and the NuEnergy
list all contain it now and are part of the public record, as is this. ',
'
I would also like to recommend that you skip the
accusations and ad hominem personal attacks if you wish to retain a shred of
credibility.
', 'If they work as claimed, I fail to understand why you
continue to resist exacting testing of your devices.
Dave Narby ', '
|
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 @ 14:09:00 UTC | | Tim Harwood (timharwood@usa.net) writes: Dave, You are utterly obsessed with
slandering me. Every day a new slander. I think you are a paid agent of the oil companies. What normal person could be so
obsessive? You have a one man crusade going here, to be sure. The reason people who have replicated POD do not wish me to
post their names, address, and phone numbers, as you desire, is because guys like you scare them off. If abusive types like
you did not exist, these people would be willing to come forward. The tests you demand, were carried out months ago by a
fully independant third party, who contacted me and summarized his results.
',
'http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/podr1.html Now, if you wish to play this game of accusing everyone who has
replicated the Adams motor and the POD unit of being delusional / a lair, then that is fine by me.
I've seen the physics
on my lab bench, so have they, we know it is for real.
I will not respond further to your slanders. Who is Dave N
anyway? Tim. |
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Thursday, June 20, 2002 @ 12:34:00 UTC | Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes:
Tim:
| New posting on 'ZPEnergy.com':
| Tim Harwood
wrote:
|
| Dave, You are utterly obsessed with
slandering me. Every day a
new slander.
Slander is
spoken. You meant libel. Libel
involves misrepresentation. I have not done this. This is moot ',
'however, as everyone reading this has the facts in this argument. They
will make up their own
minds.
| I think you are a
|
paid agent of the oil
companies.
Now,
that is libel. Thanks
for proving to everyone here you're a ",
'hypocrite.
I warned you skip the ad hominem
personal
attacks.
| What
normal person could be so
obsessive?
| You have a one
man
|
crusade going here, to be sure.
Perhaps I am
on a crusade. People do that
for the truth quite often. But it's easily arguable that I'm not ",
'obsessed - I actually have to spend very little time rebutting your
arguments. ',
'
| The reason people who have replicated POD do not ',
'wish me to post
| their names, address, and phone numbers, as you desire, is
because guys like you scare them
|
off. If abusive types like you did not
exist, these people would be willing to come forward. ',
'
Anyone can see that I have simply asked that a
basic test be
performed. You are the one abusing me by
accusing me of being obsessed, a stooge for the oil
companies, abusive
etc. You are quite adept at this tactic of accusing someone of something
and then
immediately doing it to them!
If these people
who you claimed to have
replicated the POD do not come forward for further tests, then they're results
are less
than useless. If they exist at all.
Again, this page obviously does not have the tests ',
'results contained in my previous challenge. Anyone can see
that!
',
'
| Now, if you wish to play this game of
| accusing
everyone who has
replicated the Adams motor and the POD unit of being delusional
/ a
| lair, then that is fine by me. ',
'
You are trying to put words in my mouth. I
have not said they were liars. I have not said they were delusional.
I have not said anything about
them. My comments have been towards
you. This is another tactic you are quite adept ',
'in!
I will say
now that they are MISTAKEN
and WRONG. They have not performed even the most basic tests. ',
'After the battery charging test, the next step would be more accurate
instrumentation (i.e. an oscilloscope) and after
that a comparative power test
(better yet, a calorimeter). Checking Pin vs. Pout with a cheap DMM
proves
nothing except that a better test has to be
performed.
',
"| I've seen the physics on my lab bench, so have
they, we know it is for
|
real.
I will admit that It's
obvious that you
think you do.
| I will not respond further to your slanders. Who is Dave
N anyway? Tim.
',
'
My name is Dave Narby, as
previously
noted. We might very well ask the same thing
of Tim Harwood.
I am heartened by the fact that
you are going to stop responding to this thread as you do not
seem to be able to
introduce any new information, but merely repeat your protestations that the
tests have been done
and that I am being unfair in my criticisms. It is
rapidly proving to be a waste of time to try and get any real
information out of
you, as you respond by putting words in people's mouths to create 'straw ", "men' that you may
then destroy.
BTW, thank you for providing an
easy way to sum up
the measurement and testing inadequacies in your POD and Adams motor variant
and your
evasiveness in rectifying it. I have been linking to this
thread in emails as a way of quickly summing up
the arguments. Thanks
for saving me the time I used to spend cutting and
pasting. ',
'
Dave
Narby
|
|
|
Re: Negative Energy Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Friday, June 21, 2002 @ 12:05:00 UTC | | vlad (vlad@zpenergy.com) writes: Gentlemen, please...let's cut it here. The
important fact is that Bill, Tim, John (and others) are working together on the eBike project and the 3610-30 SmartPak model
wired in self-powered mode using an "over-unity" Head (POD) Assembly, if it works as intended, would be the final test
(proof) many are waiting for. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smartpak/files/System/3610eBikeSelf.gif |
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Thursday, August 15, 2002 @ 12:58:00 UTC | Dave Narby (dnarby@acmemail.net) writes:
', 'Hi Vlad (I assume Tim is staying True to his word and ignoring this
thread),
', 'There have been some recent developments that I thought I would add
here.
This is consistent with how Bedini did it.
To date, Tim has not even addressed any
of the testing methods I outlined
in this thread and continues to simply insist that he's done enough to prove his
devices work as claimed.
Thought you would like to know.
',
'Best,
Dave N. |
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Saturday, September 28, 2002 @ 09:17:00 UTC | | Wakan writes: I think it would benefit us all if we could develop a generalized test procedure to begin with...
maybe post it on this website? so all experimenters can have a standardized guage and be on the same level so we might avoid
disputes like this.. im new to this site so if this has already been done please disregard this. |
|
|
Re: Negative Energy
Guide (Score: 1)
by Anonymous on Sunday, September 29, 2002 @ 18:25:00 UTC | | vlad (vlad@zpenergy.com) writes: Wakan, you are right, but easy said than done.
I have seen a few attempts to do just that for different types of devices with various types of output power... but nothing
like a comprehensive generalized test procedure so far. If you want to see some of the problems and proposed solutions, I'm
attaching here a recent extract from the KeelyNet discussion list, on the topic of "measuring power". |
|
|
|
|
