No 51) How to take down Monsanto - Their patents are not legalThey need better lawyers to get rid of Monsanto, the seeds/plant are not patentable outright, I have spent many years involved in the patent industry, all the grain patents are unlawful, you see they can only be lodged as improvement patents because Monsanto did not invent corn nor wheat and so on, so an improvement to a patent item or public property item can still only be an improvement patent. unfortunately when you stuff lodgement up you don't get to go back and do it again, the granting of the patent was in error in law, and once published as they all are can never be patented. So ends the mighty Monsanto with all seed patents void. and that is the law. ( for a novice, it is not for a judge to point out the law and argue it on your behalf, it must be pointed out to the judge, everyone simply missed the little but all important error)
The rest of the world is held to Patent law very strictly, the seed patent companies are no exception to the rule. A further mistake in law is to recognize copyright treatment of seeds for patent items, they argue that they are treating the seeds like software which is copyright protected not patent protected, as such the patents and protections still fail, for under copyright law, copyright exists from the moment such information is written.; as such all previous crossbreeding that led to the seeds and plants from which Monsanto and the like started with have copyright protections from the original farmers who cross pollinated them many years before the very first patent was ever lodged, so they are in breach of copyright theft and unlawful use, additionally all older crossbreeding done by backyard people on the likes of tomatoes etc and even maize to corn before the time of copyright non expiry periods is public property, as such cannot be re copy-written, nor can it be re-patented as in the first instance.
Further traces of GMO patent material is turning up without consent by aerial pollen pollution unwanted by neighboring farms. as such damages should be paid by Monsanto not claims of ownership. The Australian Bushland is now filling rapidly with canola, the environmental pollution must also be addressed as non GMO plants rarely survive outside of the cropped environment.
Further another error is self genetic modification of all plants and seeds; just like animals plants genetically modify themselves to the environment, thus the new seeds from the crop will be slightly different to the planet crop. Thus not the same seed in every way that Monsanto's patent says that it is not the same seeds as the original corn for which they never owned the patent, thus full circle back to Improvement patent. Only a lodged improvement patent is valid in law, there can be no retrospective allowance, and if granted via corrupt judges, so too the improvement by nature to local environment adaptation in the genes also makes it not the same seed. Take an Australian couple and an English couple both of full Celtic decent, have them get pregnant at the same time and move the English couple to Australia a week before the birth. The English baby will burn and be white its who life, the Aussie baby will generally not. Environment alters DNA and genetics and that is undisputed.
I am The Mighty Quinn and I am here all week
A C Quinn Nov 20 2014
No 52) The Axis Engine - The greatest advance in power boat design ever- min 25percent less fuel and more speed.
If you wish to see a similar twist of this physics please check the water pumping twist page.
The flaw in a boat design is simple, it has an engine, this engine weighs the boat down pushing it into the water creating vast drag requiring large power to bring to the plane. This is where we can improve the boat and engine design. Imagine any boat that was always on the plane? You would use far lees fuel and power to keep it as such and to get it there.
So, take your boat and where the engine is cut a u section into the back of the boat affix a rolling 3 point linkage to a smaller cut out refit section that floats on its own, on this section the engine is mounted but floats up and down independently of the boat, It has additional buoyancy added.
The boat is never lowered into the water by the weight of the engine, which is significant, the floor space of the boat is not increased for general drag, and the boat never lowers to a non plane positions using far far less power and fuel. Whilst it seems like towing you must always remember the engine is pushing the boat at all times. To many it seems like it is still one boat, it is not, if your car had no engine and was being pushed by another car, what power is you car using? ZERO, so it comes back now to just the engine itself, its own water drag, and what it cost to push a boat along the surface that is already on plane. It will always come out to about 25 percent less. The linkage merely keeps the boats, as that is what they are “2 boats” together laterally across the surface of the water. The upside it that both inboards and outboard can be changed this way. A rear spray deflector from the hull of the forward boat piece is needed to stop water rise between the two.
Bounce bars stop the rear engine boat from taking an angle of float that would be dangerous in waves etc, and a mechanical vertical crawler drive could be used to move the engine up and down on its own platform for perfection in performance replacing a mechanical or hydraulic cav plate system that exist already in many boats. Additional the base of the engine boat can be shaped for instant rise with an angular hull that would not work on a full boat.
They once said, well until a week ago that if you pump from a cubic metre tank from the bottom it will use the most energy, if you float the pump it will pump from the top decreasing as it goes for the maximum achievable gain, I proved this wrong by putting my tank in a boat in a tank, so as my pump lowered in the tank, my boat rose as it got lighter thus “my” pump never pumped from as lower point as any other in history.(at number 49 on the list) Crushing science views of what is possible is what I do.
I am The Mighty Quinn and I am here all week.
A C Quinn 22 Nov 2014
No 53) Scotch Glass on a Bottle. Giving you the design sometimes ain’t enough, you need marketing lessons.
Rather than waste space trying to give away “free” glasses with alcohol at expensive prices, coz really, people are pretty much idiots, but most of them are at least tight idiots and know that the non “free” glasses bottle cost a lot less.
So your new marketing plan is to first read the Ball Bottle at Number 46, to understand why there are no managers working in the jam and condiments industry that should even have a fucking job as a lacky much less the manager.
Now take the scotch bottle and reduce the shape of the lower third by stepping it inward some 8mm, on and angular slope inward as it extends toward the base of the bottle. At the step section wherein the glass takes a right hand /90 degree inward turn from the previous vertical upper wall section of the bottle, there shall be a drop lip at the 50 percent mark from the new bottle wall and original bottle wall. This lip shall appear and be formed as would the lip of a Tupperware container or like container, wherein the grooved lid would be pressed for seal. Upon this lip shall be a double sided U shaped rubber ring, which seals along this lip. The bottom of this seal is as described the same as the top. In this rubber grove shall fit the top edge of the free glass. At the base of the new bottle outer shall be rolled a rubber spacer ring to keep the scotch glass off the wall of the bottle evenly at all points. A rubber disc shall be placed in the bottom of the scotch glass to prevent hard placement or a short drop from forcing the scotch glass rim onto the support rim and damaging both or either, allowing the heavier glass base and bottle base to absorb all impacts.
The beautifully ornate raised picture glasses, will appear as an ornate lower section of the bottle with a rubber ring above. Collectors will kill for sets if you spend the money on good designs and raised molds, not some printed dickhead idea that wastes the entire purpose of collectors glasses. You will further account for the glass at cost which is less than 50 cents to reproduce a fucking Romanov fucking Easter egg in raised glass, so don’t be a stupid C@nt, and you will crush you competition, be a C@nt and charge more and you will get what the silly fucker making Crystal skull Vodka gets, “FUCKALL” of the market. Marketing is about winning and getting the sales, if I simply said pay me 50 cents and I will get you every scotch sale that walks in the door, you would think it perfect, the fact that it is now this beautiful ornate glass fucks your abilities not to be a fucking stupid fucking c@nt. So regardless of other dickheads who may try this, if you charge the 50cents only for the glass cost. You will crush everyone.
Look at VOK, they used to have really cool shaped bottles that stood out like Galliano bottles do, they give their marketing job to a C@nt, changed the shaped to fucking boring shit, now they have no market share. (to the manager at VOK who changed the bottles or left it changed, the fucking glass does not care what shape it is, it costs the same.Dickhead)
Your win is sales of your product, if winning isn’t enough and you just want to be a c@nt because you see value you think people should have to pay for, then you miss the point of being in marketing, you are getting sucked in by the very tool meant to suck in your new clients,” hey that is of value over and above what I normally pay yay fucking bonus, woohoo”, it’s meant to be them you fucking retards, not you being sucked in by the beauty of your own campaign. You don’t make money on flyers or TV ads in internet ads, only the sales of the product, don’t try and make money on the glass, don’t be a crystal cats piss vodka C@nt who has no market share on a bottle that costs the same as one the shape of any bottle, simply in a clever mold.
A C Quinn Nov 22 2014
No 54) A high school build gravity drive.
The math cannot be beaten not by any engineer in the world and every high school student will understand this one in less than 60 seconds a far easier build for a school than number 47 or 101 and a different design altogether.
Gravity drives are easy to build I have designed dozens that all work, and the math is undisputed, some harder to understand but this one is simple. For schools to build.
First a simple understanding so the class can see what they are going to build.
If you tape a coin to a bicycle wheel at 12.01 position, the energy used is lifting the coin from ground up the middle in a straight line, now if you let it go it will fall and drive the wheel around to 11 o’clock correct? Now if it is a ball sitting in a socket hole and a solenoid simply pops it out at 10.55, (its like popping it out with your finger) how far does the ball now have to be lifted back to 12.01? Correct, not far at all, and from then onward the ball is never staring at the bottom as far as lift goes.
So you see the now small lift each time creates a 80 percent rotation output for a 20-25% lift requirement each time. So more energy out than in, The ball simply rolls down a very slight incline to the middle of the wheel level with about 10.45 on a clock, to be lifted back up the short distance to start. Every high school in the world can build that easily. The weight of a shot-put ball or similar would run out at about 1kw per hour, based on a current wind turbine at higher speed but lesser power equivalent, really a science toy or enough to run a caravan. It is envisaged that 2 balls can run simultaneously. The second coming in as the other is opposite at 6.05
How do you build a lifter? I would simply have the ball that exits the wheel roll centre but also rear, so it is now at 10.30 height wise but at rear position at 45 degree angle ramp to the 12.05 position and simply use a second solenoid to fire it up the 20 percent into the wheel. This way timing can also be automated.. The start position at the rear can also be magazine fed, or more than one ball waiting to accommodate a fast spinning wheel not having to wait for the first ball to roll down the incline.
How is this so? Well it is not perpetual motion, the machine does not “create” free energy, it provides free energy and there is a difference. Does the solar panel not provide free energy? Oohh it must be perpetual motion then right? Of course not, nor is gravity perpetual motion, simply a natural energy source like the sun, it simply needed someone smarter than Newton to realise there are a dozen ways to get more energy out than in, using very simple machines. Has anyone ever used it before? Yes, NASA use it very time they slingshot around a planet, if you could not get more energy out from the increased speed of being pulled into the gravity field than it cost to get out, you would not do it, and certainly not spend fuel going off course to do it.
A C Quinn Nov 5th 2014
Feel free to copy and disperse any designs you see here including this. I don’t want to die like Tesla with rumours of what I designed. I want a billion copies of it.
No 55) The 30 second Popup Castle- an Instant Giant Castle for children to play in and Wedding Marquee
We have over the years invented many great toys for children, yet the giant plastic castle is expensive and takes up permanent room in the yard, you may be a grandparent that has a small yard and only want something for when the children come, or have children and also have a small space.
Outside play is really a space game, kicking the ball or any other space requirement needs the area clear.
We have tents that children can play in that are simply tents with picture of Dora and the like that are popup too, but they lack character that real fell of a castle for knights or princesses or that cowboy fort, that actually looks like the real thing, hell you could put it up in the playroom on rainy days or for sleepovers.
So how does this work? Lots of poles and shite? No. the key is the crawl tunnel. The crawl tunnel is a giant twisted spring, that when the tags are released opens out to play in, good quality ones have great springs. Now take 4 of them and stand them vertically for each of the castle towers or fort guard towers (the spring system works as a square too) so now already attached between the towers are the four hanging wall sections with the appropriate entry gate. Each tower has an angular opening inside the castle so you can actually step into the corners and look out the window crosses just like a castle. The angular opening is designed so as to go from the floor and follow the first twist in the wire and is sewn around it so no flaps or loose items to fix or tie back.
The tops of the turret corners can be castellated for boys or cone topped for girls, an open top for the square fort is best .
Naturally as you collapse each corner the sewn walls collapse down with them. Now once all four corners are pushed down and snap locked or velcro fixed, it is simply a matter of from to back placing the front towers on the rear, and then left to right, so they are all in one pile. You will note the walls self folded as you go, then one last flip of the walls onto the top and done.
The key is not merely clever use or design they key is the tower support. The spring swill not stay up in a solid manner with a support. There are 2 poles per corner, each pole is a quad fold pole like is used for tent arches. One external and one internal they are simply Velcroed on externally they do not slide through at all. That would be way too hard, we want quick and easy. There is a long 6 inch hood for the top of each pole that requires you to lift the castle up to slide it in. this is heavily sewn and is beside the sewn section of the top spring circle so the support is directly to the top of the spring.
Your window crosses or any window types must be reinforced as children will pull and lean on them.
Each wall section has a flap section with tent peg holes or for weights to hold it down in wind and from pushing and shoving. Et Voila, 30 second castle. Get out of bag, undo clips on corners, it is instantly 75 percent up, push poles into hood caps and Velcro, weight or tent peg when done.
Now this is not some idea to make out of cheap rubbish that will tear in a second nor in some tiny useless min scale version. A mini version should have a minimum square metre of floor space not including the towers. A normal one should be 4 square metre floor space for sleeping in etc not including corners, now for the winner winner chicken dinner, one with a 10 square meter minimum with the cone tops for weddings, slightly higher build of course but quick easy and exceptionally beautiful as a marquee
A C Quinn Nov 24 2014.
No 56) Pioneer Boards – Environmental Reforestation and Pioneer planting of baron regions.
The generic problem with reforestation in remote areas, steep incline areas and general regular attendance creates high costs. These costs reduce the amount of actual work that is done.
In non western countries where the idiot greenie does not control the government policy on the environment and people wish to additionally have pioneer planting in arid or baron regions this is also suitable, in western countries like Australia where they have adopted “the desert can remain the desert” policy, because they believe that a few lizards or plants over a million square miles is more valuable than a million square miles of forest.
As a certified Environmental auditor and someone who came from farming families, and who still lives in the country let me give you a few quick tips on the difference between my knowledge and government policy.
White cockatoos are protected in Australia, they are 1000 times the original number of when we arrived in Australia; bred by crops and dammed water supplies. When these crops are not in season, these plague level birds eat the seed of all other parrots species wiping them out. Cockatoos additional are seed breakers, they destroy the seed rather than swallow and spread it. So my knowledge based in fact and common sense as you can see would save more wildlife than government policy based on green votes by people with no knowledge.
So too banning reforestation/ pioneering new growth in baron areas is a similar mistake in Australia and other countries. The environment is an engine that works cyclic, when you remove or alter a part, it ceases to work. The introduction of crops for birds to eat has changed the natural cycle of seed being spread by migratory patterns of birds and animals following natural non man made plant and water supply routes. This stops seed being dropped with bird and animal droppings over baron areas and generating that change that would occur naturally. These changes are seen in geological and soil core testing which shows the forests come and go naturally without mankind. However with the advent of permanent water, now following those safer paths, as such our natural pioneer seeding never takes place. You will not find any of this published prior to the date below, so do not believe words of “we know and are planning changes from environment or government groups.
The Pioneer Boards are designed to counter that effect and help reforestation in areas that have been cleared for mining etc.
The boards are a 1.2 metre composite paper board, composite timber would not work, breakdown of both has been trialed. The composite board or very heavy cardboard is comprised layers of paper wherein water crystals, plant seeds, nutrients and compressed peat moss are compressed together to form the board. Arabic gum and cellulose based bonding agents are added to give initial strength and rigidity to the board, yet will break down and dissolve in a timely and eco friendly manner. The boards are of an arc shape to allow catching of windblown soil and debris and water moved debris and the water itself.
The Pioneer Boards are some 300mm in height and are perforated by windage and fast moving water holes to allow the boards to remain upright for as long as is possible. The perforations are 50mm diameter holes. The board has 3 leg sections, one central and two on the alternate ends. The central leg whilst painful to add, does prevent board from breaking easily before sufficient build up of soil has occurred from the movement of wind and water. The leg sections should be approximately the height of the board for reasonable leverage against wind etc, yet short enough to be easily installed.
Pine trees should never be added as a seed option as the undergrowth is virtually nil, so no micro systems will develop beneath them. Short fast growing sun plants that are considered weeds by many should be considered for pioneer plants as that are hardy and establish soil conditioning. As the forest becomes more complete the shade from the taller tree and subsequent lack of sunlight and increased bio diversity of soil and micro organisms expands, this will kill the original plants that would be considered as pests.
A good mix of seeds is essential, as plants thrive best as companions, and insects will tend not to destroy all plants when there is a good range of them. Jacaranda trees, boab trees and lemon trees will grown in all climates except snow areas, I personally have banana trees, boab trees, mango trees all growing in a 100plus days per year frost zone that gets below zero on at least 50 days per year. Plants are very adaptable. Evergreens mixed with deciduous plants allow the great bio diversity. Fine leave deciduous plants make the best ground mulch. Fruit, nut and vegetable seeds provide both short and long term gains, vegetables may only provide a onetime crop of a poor standard, but create much needed mulch and soil conditioning.
In areas where tree planting is required as an established item such as mine sites and quarries etc, these boards are ideal for the downhill side of the tree at a metre out or on the south side of the tree on the flat. Helping keep water to the main plant and speeding up a total bio diversity of plant growth and soil retention against erosion.
Coastal areas subject to erosion are also a good place for the Pioneer boards.
A C Quinn Nov 25th 2014
NO 57) Lifting the 10 ton Stone Blocks of Giza up Mt Everest with 5 ton 12 volt car winches.
Teaching Newtonian white coats with degrees, that Buoyancy does provide an energy gain, if you are smart enough.
If the fully validated 47 and 54 free energy designs were not enough to convince you that physics is merely a toy to me and that 101 will destroy the very fabric of how the world runs on energy, perhaps destroying another physics myth right here will convince you that I am the one.
How do I come up with so many designs so quickly is often something I am asked. It is easy; I start at the impossible and work backwards from there. Look I will show you, for those who have read 47 and 54, you now know that Newton was not merely beaten but flogged and it has been validated by engineers that there is massive free energy in undisputed math in the machines. so how do you start first? Simple. what weighs more, a ton of air, a ton of lead or a ton of feathers? every school child has been asked this question, and the answer taught to everyone was they all weight the same. Really?? are you sure? funny because I watch a ton of trapped air, lift hot air balloons every day, so it does not fall at all, in fact it costs energy to get hot air down, no matter how many ton there is.
There is always an exception if not many exceptions to the "rules".
Here is one every person with a degree will argue. Ok the human body we will use for an example, each person has a set strength at maximum, so we will go well above it to show physics laws are rubbish, now remember you can change the human to a machine and the result is the same. Can you lift a 400 kilo rock off the ground without bending your knees? I can, every day of the week, lift it up put it down endlessly . You are using a machine?!! No bare hands. Impossible !!!!... what weighs more again?
Ok so take your rock, place it in an air filled box and seal it, submerse it in 2 metres of water, and it will sit on the bottom, but with the right amount of air you can lift it up and down all day long. Now you have not more strength, a machine replacing you does not have more energy. Every single book at MIT and Harvard and Yale and NASA say there is no energy gain from buoyancy, whatever you gain it costs you. So we see this is entirely untrue.
Everyone always made the mistake of thinking you have to pump air in and let air out, thus air pumped down cost as much as the bouncy gained. Is my physics comprehension better? “SHOW US A GAIN WE CAN USE” scream the white coats with the Newtonian Physics degrees; sure My Physics can move heavy objects along underwater in the ocean. Why would I try to pump the air down? That costs energy. If I want an undersea pipe to be moveable it would simply encase it on the surface with trapped air at no cost. It still has to be lowered to the bottom of the ocean, at least mine can be moved around easily.
The unpressurized submarine use of buoyancy is an amazing thing, now we look at full buoyancy and you have a boat, but to move underwater without cost, you see this can be done easily. The casing can be removed or left on. What you have is movement of objects like outer space large masses moved by small energy input.
Ok so there is one industry that may benefit (all the white coats just dumped the “you can’t get energy from buoyancy” claim to find something to bitch about)
So are there other applications on land?
Ok lets us move all the blocks of the Giza pyramid up Mt Everest mountain with some 12 volt car winches.
So the blocks are all placed in boxes sealed like the rock for semi buoyancy, they are dumped into a canal where a cables pulls them forward into a loch,(think roller coaster car drive from underneath ) the loch is a cube. A gate closes, and the block moves forward into a cubic loch, Remember the entire cube loch is underwater, the gate closes. The next lock is a cube attached to a vertical rectangular cube, so it looks like a boot, the door between the two opens and the vertical water cannot fall because the lochs are sealed, the block is moved forward into the elevator loch, and the gate is closed, a car winch lifts the semi buoyant giant block up to the next loch, the gate opens and it moves across, the gate closes and it is raised again. Unlike an open boat loch where water needs to be pumped or flow downstream to fill the lochs and lift the boats, the sealed loch has no such issues as the water remains where it is always. And yet giant stone blocks with little weight are now climbing Mount Everest. Showing buoyancy does have an energy gain if you know what to do with it. So instead of megawatts of power, it is simply kilowatts. What your are really looking at is a single giant pipe filled with water that has an abject that water displacement took place in the first loch, the same as a submarine only displaces water when it is first submerged after that it is simply an object passing through water just like watching the old retro bubble lamps run, the water displacement never alters, and the top is simply open to a canal where it is removed and then taken away. The boxes simply slid back down at no energy cost. The pressure on each gate is no more than the water weight of two lochs at any one time.
Now take that angular ascent and make the lochs opposing on each second one and the rise is vertical not angular
With this and some really cool leverage devices I also know how to build, I could have built the pyramids with a few guys and some donkeys.
.If you haven’t worked out what a series of 10 ton blocks climbing a tower to a hundred metres and let fall every 30 seconds can produce in free energy using time over power like number 47 then you should give up Physics.
Does it matter if anyone ever uses this? NO, it matters that science recognizes I kicked its ass again and there rubbish is simply not true, and your children should know that either I am the smartest man the world has ever seen, or that they knew there was limitless free energy everywhere and lied and deceived you to enslave you to oil and coal and nuclear power as is they way of all Nazis, so which is it? I will take either as a public admission.
Newton being wrong is not an opinion, it is a “proven” fact. I can always get more energy out than in, in every possible use of physics, if you think that was the coolest think you ever learnt besides 47 and 54, baby you ain’t seen nothing yet, 101 will blow your mind, fully mechanical, not clumsy and runs like a f’n car engine with nuclear level power output continuously.
So did you work out the free energy machine from this? Ok Newtonians bend over, coz this is gunna hurt, you lift ten ton ten metres it falls you get the same output, the world throws Newton’s rubbish in the bin and listens to The Mighty Quinn, he makes the container with enough air so that it floats just below the surface, pushes the ten ton bock in his container into a single loch, closes the outer gate opens the inner gate to a 120 metre single tower, and the ten ton lifts 110 metres up to float just below the surface. A gate closes below it, a machine just like the Newtonians is used to lift it the ten metres out and over to the drop side that is simply running chain track to turbine and the box fits it the shaft and cogs to the chain falling 120 metres down, so at least 100 metres of ten ton falling free energy over about 1 minute, for the same lift the Newtonians used; its landing point is a canal that goes back around to the tower to wait in line behind the other blocks making the run. Shove nuclear this is dirt cheap but most of all is the clearest example That I am the master of physics not Newton and certainly not MIT or NASA. Now you have seen Newton beaten with three completely different types of physics, so clearly no fluke of one design or thought process, and number four is a mechanical master piece.
I am The Mighty Quinn and I’m here all week.
Go on sing it you know you want to. ▶ GOTTHARD - MIGHTY QUINN (MADE IN SWITZERLAND).mp4 - YouTube
A C Quinn Nov 26 2014
NB: Engineer Validated 28th Nov 2014 – “Looks good”
Notes: this machine is more viable than a combustion engine that can run out of fuel or fail in spark – for Buoyant objects will always rise to the surface no matter the depth, falling Objects will always create energy – Nothing can alter these facts :
At less than 10 percent lift cost on the described height, there is a minimum 90 percent output for free – estimated fall time 60 second driving the generator @10,000KG (not including bonus encasement weight) 10,000 falling 1 Metre x 9.81 = 98100 joules x 100m = 9,810,000 joules divided by the 60 second fall time = 163,500 watts x 60 mins per hour =9,810,000 watts per hour, less lift cost of 10 percent, = 8,829,000 watts. However the cycle time for rise is not accommodated even with multiple blocks in play, so it may add up to 5 minutes to the cycle. This one such unit would be then calculated at producing =8,829,000 divided by 6 =1,471,500 watts per hour clean free energy per tower unit. Or 1471.5 kilowatts per hour= 1.4 megawatts or min 75 houses assuming massive 20kw usage per day.
Update: It seems that Engineering and Physics is not everyone’s forte. The drive is simple. The sides of the boxes (encapsulating the weight blocks) are recessed with a groove or channel, this channel has cog drive receptacle slots, the drive is a simple roller coaster style chain with protruding bars that interlock with the slots. The drives are short in length; this allows only energy use moving the weights horizontally in the immediate vicinity of the weights, instead of running giant long drives. The drive engage as the weight box enters the section and disengages as it leaves.
The horizontal drive inside the vertical tower is short and splayed, thus as the weight box enters it disengages from the drive tracks to allow it to float up to the top of the tower. A series of guide rails starting 10 metres from the top allow the Block to be slowly guided back to centre and engage the vertical drive. The vertical drive is the same, only the channels are vertical on the alternate sides of the box. Once in the drive section entrance the drive engages to lift the box clear of the surface. As the box is rising out of the water, the exit side is sloped in an angular fashion mirrored behind.
As the box starts to move horizontally it engages the entrance to the energy drive. This is a mirror of the lower drives on the sides. The box is simply rolled over into the energy drive which is the same as the horizontal drive engaging the horizontal side channels. So like a roller coaster car going over the to of a hill. At the point where the gravity will take control, the box is simply driving the chain instead of the chain driving the box. As it falls, the chain drive connected directly to a turbine produces energy. If one is familiar with flywheels such as those small cars you run a few times along the floor to get them to go, a flywheel would allow the generator to keep running if your timing is good for sequential blocks.
The blocks do not fall fast because they are turning a turbine, so there is no great impact at the base, and inertial dampers that generate power rather than use power can be used in the last few metres. The box reengages side drives as it levels out below the water. The side drives additionally ensure the box does not bob up and down and stays below the water line, it also ensures clean entry to the second small loch without hitting the upper lip on entry and ensuring air does not enter the lochs. And repeat.
AC Quinn Nov 28 2014
No 101) The Dragon’s Den.
The Dragon’s Den.
The Mark 11 Free Energy Machine Complex – output 1154 megawatts per hour Nuclear equivalent.
Complex meaning there are multiples of them on this one site, 60 Dragons. The square meter area for the machines is 250 metres x 750 meters. 187500sqm plant.
Roof Height 15 metres height. Each unit is 10 metres wide and 220 metres in length.
The structural cost is estimated for the machines not including Turbines or complex (they can actually be outdoors) = $90,000,000 total estimated cost based on current similar structural engineering costs out of China, triple or quadruple for western countries (still peanuts on a nuclear plant cost and zero fuel ever)
The machines are gravity drive, the machine design is theoretically physically larger for this description simply for easy to understand math for a 16year old high school student, so that in the uncomplicated for it can never be hidden from the world with some complex bullshit story. Losses have been well accounted for with a 20 percent overrun on actual output in math to allow for stress losses, friction and windage, plus a little extra. The beauty of the system is that it can simple be extend by additional units even if there was a shortfall in estimates.
The actual real build will be smaller; I am only using multiples of ten for the math and ease of understanding.
The complex comprises 60 Dragon units operating simultaneously in alternation like pistons for even power flow.
Each unit/piston has a 20 megawatt per hour minimum output; each unit can run a singular turbine or be linked in series to others in small mini banks of 6 units. The idea not to link them all is so that a breakdown.
The central shaft is a cam shaft much the same as a normal piston shaft. The end of each section/mini bank can be a locomotive style arm for linking all banks if required yet able to be separated for maintenance and repair; Or can be direct to turbine per bank.
Unlike the Mark 1 Machine that was merely to show that I could get more energy out from in with engineer validated math, This is not a water drive like the Mark 1 at number 47
At number 47 and 54, you have seen the only human not only to beat Newton and current beliefs convincingly, economically viable and viable energy output, as with a surgery technique or any new technology, the only expert is the person who has done it, and in this instance in different methods entirely, so according to all the rules you have spent living by on expert witnesses, unfortunately though many will hate it, I am that only expert. It really is like arguing with the only successful eye surgeon if there was only one. I assure you there are many different methods aside from the 2 you have read and the 3rd you will get.
To give you a brief outline of the device so you will see the overall output before costs, This is a broad description so you may calculate at least the output math before June 2015.
60 pistons, each having a weight exclusive of the piston linkage and fram of 20 ton. Or 20,000 kgs
Each piston is connected via a cam shaft to the desired number required in a bank by the builder. The cam shaft is connected to the turbine, the turbine is an off the shelf model, so there are no losses there at all. The camshaft is identical in nature to a combustion engine shaft, this too has available math easily scaled.
Each piston is raised by its own Phantom drive in sequential firing order as with a normal motor, with a no blank variation (explained shortly)
Each piston rises 10 metres vertically under the power of the Phantom drive and is released to free fall the full weight of the 20,000kg to the piston to cam shaft drive.
Each of these drives has in excess of 40 megawatts per hour output, minimum, a slow cycle is set at 2 mins per individual rotation or full stroke of the piston.
There are three costs, the standard small loss of friction across the cam shaft to turbine drive, there is the stress loss where the weight of any item suspended on a beam will divert torque and energy through the beam during lift and about a quarter of that during fall. The third cost is the power input for the phantom drive which powers the pistons. Where 47 defeated Newton with power over time, and 54 defeated Newton using NASA slingshot gravitational gain; this drive is neither, yes there is even another method of gaining free energy ( well heaps actuallY0) a 3rd entirely different method combing both gravity, high speed energy redirection for fast cycle engines. The dragons or pistons could probably be run 4 times as fast, but I am not that up with the mechanical stress of 20 ton objects moving that fast and how well the cam shaft “could be built for higher speeds at that massive size.
If the nuclear energy industry or all fueled industry is not yet very scared, consider this, the first two versions were validated beyond question simply from the same directions you were given. The third was actually built some years ago, it was an issue with the phantom drive that had to be resolved, and fully “independent verification” tests by more than a dozen mechanical and electrical engineers validated this as perfect and 100percent accurate. As they did not know what it would be used for and were doing it for persons of other names and industries, they had no idea what they were validating, some work for NASA, some for MIT some for Harvard, the list was quite exhaustive, and this was my kill stroke, that on the day of release everyone in the world will already be able to access the phantom drive data. The request was simple, does it perform this function? Will it do it 24/7? And what is the kilowatt requirement per hour to achieve this function.? The answer was yes to the first 2 and very low for the 3rd. Thus was born the phantom drive and better than Nuclear level free energy.
So 20,000 kilos falling 1 metre x 9.81 (gravity) = 196200 joules divided by the 120 seconds full piston rotation cycle time = 1635 watts per cycle x 30 cycles per hour = 49050 watts per hour per metre fall x 10 metre fall = 490500 watts per hour per piston x 60 pistons. = 29,430,000 watts per hour per power station. Yes that is 29 million if you think it is a typo, so what are the costs for the phantom drive? What are the losses in friction?
Remember already Validated by engineers of the highest order the world over, they simply didn’t know it. (Surprising how many big corporations would be happy to have free energy as there power cost forever.) You don’t even need to believe that part is true, you only need to understand that only one man has “proved” full knowledge and capability of such machine in variety, and he is the designer. In a court of law the judge would only accept the expert who has done it, not the one with an opinion, and whose previous can’t be done opinion turned out to be wrong.
Estimated build time would be probably 90 days in China once they drew up plans, steel fabrication is very fast compared to concrete and bricks and nuclear facilities and steam units etc etc etc. an as you can see the land space is approximate to a normal nuclear power station. Still think you have a chance to get it below 1154 megawatts per hour.?
Have a Very very Merry Christmas.
End of unsecured document processing.
Release date June 20th 2015
A C Quinn Update Nov 25th 2014