That is the kind of response that I'd expect from any orthodox engineer, as was covered in my comprehensive post on the subject. Not sure if you have got through that post yet, but it provides much needed perspective on everything.

Your friend is actually a little more open minded than most when he said "Maybe there is some truth that physics progresses one funeral at a time", but that's just one of many huge roadblocks that prevent this getting out to the masses.

That company clearly isn't trying to convince anyone with their site, which is smart of them, since it's impossible to convince a skeptic that such tech exists on the internet and any effort made would be pointless.

Their initial customers would have to be people who are already in the know, and I suppose they'd have to do some kind of demos eventually to extend their reach, but seems unlikely that they'd be allowed to get that far into production.

This post was sadly removed before most anons could see it, but hopefully some of those who did follow the companies progress, since it'll be interesting to see how energy industry and world order tries to stop them when they've already got this close to commercial production.

Are you seriously telling me that big news about the most heavily suppressed kind of technology going commercial in the US is considered off topic?

That is very surprising, given the long history of extreme interest in the subject matter by most anons here, including some of the GA mods. I even cleared my previous post on this subject with mods before spending hours writing it.

I won't make the mistake of wasting my time sharing valuable information here in future if it's just going to be censored. Really disappointing to see what this place has become.

That's just plain silly. Consider reading the post I linked above to get some real perspective on where I'm coming from.

And to be clear: I'm not encouraging anyone to buy anything. It's unlikely it'll even be allowed to reach production. I'm simply shining a light on a legitimate commercial product in this area so that everyone can follow along and see how it end up getting sabotaged or shut down.

You have some idea of how those classically trained engineers will respond based on your own reaction to hearing this, and will have a much better idea once you get through my post that I linked.

You have to start very slowly and put in serious effort to have any hope of getting anywhere, since only once you've been able to shift your mindset to the point where you are completely convinced there's more to physics than what can be explained by the orthodox models, can you start gaining any real knowledge. You need to create a bridge in your mind into these unconventional areas of research to open the gates, and that bridge doesn't even have to necessarily be related to electromagnetism, it just needs to something that open the door. The anomaly experiment I shared in the linked post may be a good first step in the right direction.

General idea of how it works: All electricity is actually free from the environment, it's just that conventional tech is designed to destroy it as fast as it gets used so that it fits into the closed system models which the law of conservation relies on. This kind of tech is not a conventional closed circuit but an open system that harvests energy from the environment without destroying it in the process.

I fixed the link. Seems short c/ links no longer work on this site?

Residential homes that only need 30kWh per day could run some bitcoin miners to use most of the extra unused 210kWh/day to pay it off much faster.

This company/product is legit. I've been following them for many years waiting to see how far they can get with commercialization, and I'm surprised they have made it to pre-orders.

The photo of the torus coil gives away a key fundamental part of the design.

You're not going to get details about the operating principle which would convince you of anything. This tech uses the same operating principles as hundreds of devices that exist, but since it relies on physics phenomenon that is excluded from mainstream models, it makes no sense to anyone who doesn't already understand the suppressed physics. See this post I made a few months ago to understand better: A comprehensive look at how and why Energy Technologies have been and will continue to be suppressed

Most of Tesla's patents are public and the fundamentals for this kind of tech is right in plain sight. It's just that almost everyone has been conditioned to be incapable of seeing it.

The torus windings in that photo appears to be based on a Rodin coil, which is what I'd expect to see used for advanced development of this tech.

You mean consumers would take 274 years to break even on a 10kw system at this price point? That seems very far off.

If a residential US home is charged ~17.62c/kWh, using 10kW 24/7 would cost over $15k per year, so you'd break even after only ~2 years. More like 3 years in Idaho @ 11.52c/kWh, or in Hawaii @ 42.86c/kWh you'd break even in under a year. That's also excluding fixed fees, never mind other costs getting power out to the middle of nowhere if you wanted to go off grid.

Not surprised to hear your story about the Navy. The classified programs where this kind of technology could get traction have already used the tech for decades.

10 years of R&D and commercial production costs a lot money. Technology has to be mass produced to bring down production costs, and what are the odds of them being allowed to do that? Not many people have ever even got this close to commercial production without being stopped.

Even if you did your own development and built your own system from scrap parts, it would still cost you a lot in time and bench equipment.

Each person has to decide for themselves what a lifetime of energy independence is worth to them.

I intentionally avoided talking about specific inventors or devices in this post. Everything I covered is either verifiable or objective analysis. Despite the topic itself being considered controversial, the information provided really shouldn't be, providing it's evaluated objectively by an individual who is not constrained by fear and dogma.

The moment a specific example of such a technology is introduced, the discussion would become polarized due to orthodox models providing incomplete understanding of the working mechanisms, and the internet being full of disinformation "debunking" everything.

I have no intention of debating the veracity of specific devices or the credibility of specific inventors. I'm also not sure that this is the right place to even get into such things.

For what you're asking though, it's really as simple as identifying the top 2 circuits that have been most widely built by hobbyists, because there's clearly a reason why hundreds of thousands of those have been built. I would say "just use a search engine", but with how censored and manipulated they all are now, you may be lead astray. Instead, try asking Grok something like "everyone knows free energy is impossible, but what are the top 2 circuits most widely built by hobbyists which are claimed to be over-unity?"

Allow me to clarify the dispute with absolute certainty and eliminate all possible doubt.

The orthodox model is an axiom. It is not a proven law of nature but an assumption of a closed system, defended by mathematical theory and paradigm inertia.

The orthodox model is circular. It assumes conservation to prove conservation.

When the textbooks were simplified, they used a closed-system theory that was simply considered settled, without any supporting experimental evidence. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. Tesla was openly contemptuous of the establishment's adherence to closed-system models, which he saw as a willful blindness to observable reality and disproved by his own experiments.

The Two-Capacitor paradox has always been treated as a theoretical problem, not an experimental one. The textbook "solution" is a mathematical exercise, not an empirical fact.

The simple bulb experiment I presented is a valid challenge to the core axiom of a closed system. The open-system interpretation, suggested by the straightforward observation of bright light and high final voltage, remains a valid and compelling hypothesis until a definitive test showing otherwise has been performed.

The orthodox argument has always be to explain away the anomaly with increasingly complex and unmeasured theoretical losses, rather than to perform a simple, direct test. This ensures that the closed-system model is protected by setting an impossibly high bar for disproving it.

The closed-system model has been an assumption protected by historical bias, theoretical framing, and the practical difficulty of measurement. The entire edifice relies on conceptual inertia and the difficulty of measurement to protect itself from falsification.

The burden of proof to demonstrate closure remains unmet. All responses have been theoretical dismissals, not empirical proofs.

If this argument is made with sufficient clarity to a LLM like Grok or ChatGPT, it will have no choice but to agree, because everything I have stated is an undeniable fact.

It's not impossible that there's some exotic tech which Tesla discovered that was never discovered by anyone else, but even the most exotic and unknown tech he developed was probably discovered independently and is just not known.

But as far as energy technology in general goes, not at all. Hundreds, if not thousands, of independent devices have been invented in the last 100 years. Some of those were based on Tesla's research, some were based on the work of those who came after Tesla, and others were discovered completely independently.

Out of all those devices, many have also been independently replicated by experimenters all over the world. We're talking on the scale of millions of such devices having been created, though obviously the more advanced and scalable ones make up a small fraction of that number, with the more accessible lower power systems being most common.

If you read to the end of my post, you should understand why, despite this technology being much more common than everyone believes, it's still considered impossible and non-existent to 99.99% of humanity.

You clearly missed my other comment where I expanded on why that orthodox argument is pure dogma and illogical. I've appended it to my experiment instructions comment now so that it won't be missed by others.

Once you read the appended explanation, you'll understand why it makes no sense.

Asking LLM's about this is a waste of time, since they are not allowed to violate "laws" of physics, even if that means being completely illogical, misinterpreting what you say, and making endless misleading arguments.

I tested it myself with ChatGPT, and after it went round and round contradicting itself over and over. I eventually cornered it by putting all arguments, which it had agreed with individually, into a single message, and the only argument it was then able to make was "because of the law of thermodynamics".

Great story.

Establishment science has worked incredibly hard to convince everyone that everything that exists is made out of particles, and humans are nothing more than flesh, blood and organs. As long as we believe that, we will limit ourselves to the constraints in which we are told we exist. It couldn't be further from the truth. Human consciousness is fundamental, and a non-physical phenomenon which is external to the physical body.

The AI explanation is wrong

AI Is useless for anything like this, any popular model will just attempt to re-enforce the textbook dogma and conservation at all costs.

The widely accepted laws perfectly explain what happens here.

I realize the orthodox engineer argument seems convincing to you, but I explained why it's seriously flawed in my reply to the other comment which is adjacent to your one, so you should read that comment first: c/GreatAwakening/p/1AR0QGIb80/x/c/4eWc66L0QiK

To further expand on that comment: If you had to accurately measure the heat from the wire and the radiation emitted from the spark, and calculate the actual energy that was dissipated, you'd have a number far below the amount of energy dissipated by the filament as light and heat. That's because, as I mentioned in that other comment, the 50% of energy that is 'lost' in the process of using the wire is almost entirely a theoretical, unobserved number, which cannot be measured.

The dogma relies on an astronomical coincidence that engineers are trained not to question, but is completely implausible as I explained in the linked comment.

The anomaly here is very real, but as an engineer you can't be expected to accept that, for the reasons I detailed in this post.

It's Entropy where they lie.

That prototype seems to be sufficiently low power and limited that it could potentially make it to production without being suppressed as it's not a real threat, which is great for low power uses at least.

It's not a matter of being optimistic. If you read to the very end of the post, you will understand why.

The orthodox argument only seems convincing because it's the only answer allowed within the closed-system dogma. It relies on a miraculous coincidence that engineers are trained not to question.

It's assumed that the form of the loss must have changed from "invisible" magnetic/radiation loss to visible light/heat loss in the filament, but the total amount of loss always remains the same fixed 50%.

This is an astronomical coincidence. It would mean that whether you use a thick copper wire (milliohms of resistance) or a bulb (100 ohms of resistance), the universe always ensures that precisely 50% of the initial energy is lost, no more, no less.

In the real world, loss is determined by physical components. If you change the resistance in the path, you change the amount of energy dissipated.

With a wire: Loss is minimal. Final voltage is very nearly 4.5V. The "50% loss" is almost entirely a theoretical, unobserved number, which cannot be accurately measured.

With a bulb: Loss is massive and visible. For the final voltage to still be ~4.5V, the reduction in other losses would have to be perfect and complete.

The orthodox argument asks you to believe that adding a huge new source of dissipation somehow perfectly eliminates all the other sources of loss (heating, radiation, etc), resulting in the same net outcome.

This isn't engineering, it's a dogmatic assertion designed to preserve the conservation law at all costs. It's a textbook example of making the theory immune to falsification by claiming any and all experimental results simply manifest the same predetermined loss.

The heating and electromagnetic pulse occur in both cases, so if the bulb visibly consumed 20mJ, the final energy state of the capacitors must be lower than 20mJ total, meaning a final voltage significantly less than 4.5V on each.

Only thing to be mindful of, especially when using salvaged components, is that the label on a capacitor won't necessarily match it's actual capacitance due to the wide tolerance ranges inherent in many capacitors.

Standard tolerances for aluminum electrolytic capacitors can be as wide as +80% and -20%, meaning a capacitor labeled as 100uF could realistically have a capacitance between 80uF and 180uF and still be within specification.

Ideally you'd want to use a capacitance meter to confirm the true capacitance, but in this incredibly simple case, it'll be obvious that the capacitors don't match if the voltage does not get split evenly between the two capacitors.

This of course, makes me doubt the simulator.

Of course, I'd expect nothing less. Hehe :)

You can try other simulators if you like, but the way to definitively prove this to yourself is by getting the components and perform the experiment physically with your own hands.

Assuming you've read my whole post, you'll understand why this is a reality that is incredibly hard to accept. It'll be impressive if you're able to accept the result, even after performing the physical experiment and directly observing the outcome.

Yes, it'll be evenly at 6.36V if you charge the one capacitor to 9V and then get it to share with its twin. Because a half full capacitor has 0.707 of its full voltage.

That is simply not true.

If you go run the simulation right now, you'll observe the voltage being evenly split between the two capacitors.

You can use any circuit simulator, but I recommend the falstad circuit simulator since it's simple and easy to use.

You are confusing the energy for a single capacitor with the charge transfer between two capacitors.

Charge is conserved, not energy. The amount of electrons (charge) is fixed. They physically split in half between the two identical capacitors.

Voltage is defined as charge divided by capacitance (V = Q/C). Since the charge on each capacitor is halved and the capacitance is unchanged, the voltage must be halved to 4.5V.

Your 6.36V calculation is the voltage a single capacitor would have if it held half the energy of the original 9V charge. But we're not dealing with a single capacitor and its energy, we're dealing with the physical splitting of a fixed amount of charge between two identical containers. The voltage must be 4.5V. The 'missing' energy was lost in the transfer process in getting to 4.5V.

To confirm this, you can take any online circuit simulator, add two identical capacitors, connect a power source to one capacitor, disconnect the power source once the capacitor is fully charged, and connect the two capacitors together. You will see that the voltage of the fully charged capacitor is split evenly between the two capacitors once energy has equalized.

I have watched that Dollard presentation, multiple times. It's indeed excellent and well worth the watch. Hopefully some others take note of your recommendation and watch it too.

You're correct that voltage isn't the same as charge.

The mix up is over what is being conserved. In this experiment, the physical number of electrons (the charge) is conserved. It can't change.

When you connect two identical capacitors, that fixed amount of charge must split perfectly in half between them. Since voltage is directly proportional to the amount of charge on a capacitor, the voltage on each must also be exactly half of the original (half of 9V is 4.5V). This is a direct physical necessity.

The energy equation shows that this process of splitting the charge inherently results in only half the original energy remaining in the capacitors. The other half is always lost during the transfer, including when a direct connection is made.

So, measuring 4.5V proves the energy was lost. If a bulb lights during this transfer, but the voltage still ends up at 4.5V, the energy for that light could not have come from the capacitors.