Renewables

Renewable energy technology relies on external 'open system' inputs from the natural environment, as opposed to delivered 'finite' solid fuel sources.   Solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal are the main open system inputs.

In a sense these technologies represent progress, relative to conventional hydrocarbon extraction and use, but they bring new issues with them.

However, the life cycle cost of renewables needs to be considered as well as the in-situ impact on ecosystems.  It isn't a free lunch.

Solar PV now has a 20-30 year life and a payback of approx 4 years until it produces more energy than was needed to make a panel, but production uses many minerals and materials that must be mined or recycled. Wind turbines use tons of concrete and steel, produce large electromagnetic fields and ultra sound, and are a danger to birds. Biomass is not really 'renewable'  and can actually have a devastating impact of its own.  The issues go on ...

Within this arena Hydrogen is an exciting field of endeavour (links at the end).
​

hyper renewables

What if there was a source of energy that existed beyond the accepted mechanics of nature that actually drives all life-processes ?  What if this could be tapped to sustain asymmetry in a system without closing the circuit ?

This idea has been the preserve of science fiction and secretive engineers working at huge personal risk for over a century, but is the veil gradually lifting ?

​The sun is our outside power source which drives atmospheric pressure and ion gradients, there is also the un-manifest energy of the vacuum or ether - the cold plasma of space.  ‘Renewables’  rely on temporary phenomena such as wind, wave and sun, but we forget the invisible forces that are always present, not understanding that perhaps it is THEY who can provide power to a system that is currently primed to asymmetry by known fuels.
As  the 'polarised' man-made-co2 climate debate thunders along we all lose sight of obvious common ground which is that our species is causing dreadful ecosystem damage, and so weaning off a fuel source that is known to have nasty consequences cannot be a bad thing, even when the new sources have impacts of their own, as we drive to diversify and innovate. (Charles Eisenstein makes a very good case for the bigger picture, beyond narrow CO2 concerns, and that we need to clean up.  This talk by Jem Bendell is also well balanced  'Breaking Together'.)

However, as Bradford Hill said in 1965 (big tobacco) "what are the plausible consequences of being wrong?"  Fundamentally we must reduce consumption, in reality that will not happen, we just move the pieces around the same board, so technology MUST also drive change.

Ironically oil heating is still the cheapest form of heating per kWh, so there is no incentive yet to diversify for purely financial reasons.  This is an interesting website comparing the running costs of oil, gas and electric heating, including heat pumps:  https://www.paulbraybrooke.com/running-costs-oil-gas-electric-heat-pumps/​

But what is on the near event horizon ?  The 100th monkey seems very much to have been born.

We need Breakthrough  Technologies

Technological advance is always the game changer, and there is no reason to think that innovation will stop now.

​Sceptics abound of course, claiming that physics has reached its zenith. But imagine telling someone in the 19th Century about mobile phones. Recall Lord Kelvin who claimed in 1895 that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible” !!!   Pioneers and courageous engineers in the end drive us forward and the nay-sayers are left eating their proverbial hats.

​EV's for example have many problems but emerging battery tech will solve the main ones:  weight causing excess wear on tyres, roads and structures and more dangerous collisions, battery fires, range anxiety, pollution from life cycle impact of lithium-ion, rare elements mining, they also still rely on whatever is being used to produce grid electricity.   The one problem that isn't solved with better capacitors is the effect of electromagnetic fields from the vehicles (magnetic, electric and EMF).
'Hyper renewable' devices are already dotted around the planet generating useable power output at COP>1  (co-efficient of performance greater than 1 means you get more out than you put into the system) without the conventional inputs to closed systems.
​
Variously called 'over-unity', 'zero point' or 'free energy', but really they are self running systems, mirroring nature.

​The engineers are of course careful to keep quiet about their innovations since this paradigm shift fundamentally threatens the status quo.  The global economy is defined by limited energy reserves and the cost of energy production and so a transition to a new source will be long and challenging. It must however happen eventually.
How do they work ?  Being variously solid state or kinetic, using magnetical fields or other systems that can draw on parallel inputs or resonate with a higher order of energy - what if Time is the force that supplies natures open systems with energy?

Hyperenewables involve a different and deeper understanding of the laws of physics, all 'laws' must evolve as insight deepens, as does the Common Law of the land, a self updating matrix.   Tesla, Maxwell, Heaviside were well known pioneers whose work has been sidelined. Maxwell published 20 equations exploring this dimension, but we have only been exposed to 4 in the mainstream.
​
Think of a magnet and its field.  Isn't this a truly remarkable everyday expression of a perpetual force that provides 'work' with no obvious input ?  A true singularity tapping into a weird and marvellous force.

Over-unity explained. 11mins.
We are simply making use of the infinite power available in the more invisible yet constant forces of nature.  Cosmic rays, magnetical field dynamics, atmospheric fluid dynamics (differentials in atmospheric pressures and temperatures, extreme hydrodynamic sheer forces to create cavitations and plasmoids) etc.

In simple terms we need to create or sustain an asymmetry in a system by shielding or sustaining one part of the gradient so that balance is prevented.  (The self symmetrisation mechanism is the cause for the observed conservation of energy).

Take a battery as an example.  The asymmetry is created by forcing electrons to one side of the chemical cell by charging with an external energy source - creating a dipole.  The current that we then draw is the cell seeking to regain a balanced/neutral state.  No electrons are lost in the process, so WHAT is doing the work ?!!

In a conventional closed circuit symmetry is always restored, consuming energy, and there are also losses from the Counter EMF (CEMF) and the circuit itself.  Open circuits cut these losses.  If you have COP>1 that matters less, but it also opens you up to new inputs.

The trick is to find a way to sustain asymmetry without needing constant or COP<1 resulting finite inputs.  This may be for example by drawing on parallel energy inputs to sustain a gradient.  For Casimir effect (proves energy in the vacuum), and the Heaviside component (static field around wires) etc watch: Heaviside Limits

What is Free Energy. 24mins.

​Why are self running systems not well known?  There doesn't need to be 'big oil' standing in the way, though there may be plenty of evidence of this, but perhaps all the brakes on disclosure via multiple agencies can be seen as a natures way of stalling until we are 'ready' as a species to employ this next level of technology.  

When are we ready ?  That is a big question.  The conventional excuse is that we are too immature to wield new toys and that we would over consume and ultimately destroy given limitless energy, but is that fair ?  

The human body (and all of nature) is another example of an open circuit with quantum critical systems that patently draw energy from sources other than 'ingestibles', yet we are still taught that we operate as a closed circuit.  Quantum electrodynamic research is starting to show how life draws power from the ether. The limiting beliefs of closed circuits also dog the climate models which are trying to reflect a complex non linear system.  What we need in parallel is an evolution of consciousness and understanding, to see the functions of time and higher speeds of light as combined in one multi dimensional open space.

The book Humankind paints a more noble picture of our innate virtues. Perhaps without 'fear of lack' and an expanded understanding of nature such a gift would elevate and moderate us.

But many machines have been tested and dont work?  True, it is easy to mistake creating a voltage for the capacity for work.  A useful system must yield current as well, and that is harder ....   It has been done, these are in use, quietly dotted around the world, but very much under wraps.
[email protected]
​Seeking better ways to power our buildings and shape our future.