No 51) How to take down Monsanto - Their patents are not legal
They 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
Update
Update
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