Anti-Gravity and Free Energy, But Seriously...

Post Reply New Topic

I would like to ask if there is someone knowleadgeable about topics like:

Viktor Schauberger's Implosion Engines;
Thomas Townsend Brown's Assymetrical Capacitors
John Searl's electromagnetic flying devices;

I would like to ask if someone would have read books like:
"Secrets of antigravity propulsion" by Paul La Violette;
"Living Energies" and others by Callum Coats, about Viktor Schauberger;

https://www.lenfisherscience.com/56-the ... ting-frog/

The true story of the levitating frog

by Len Fisher
24 Mar 2015
Mini Stories from Science

When Professor Michael Berry gave a seminar in our department at Bristol on the physics of levitation, the emphasis was all on the physics. And so it should have been, because his profound insight had overturned a belief that physicists had held for more than a hundred years.
The belief was that there was no way for stable magnetic levitation to occur. This result from classical physics was proved mathematically by Samuel Earnshaw in 1842, and is known as Earnshaw’s theorem. Simply put, the theorem says that no object can be held stably by magnetism and gravity alone. So one can imagine Michael’s surprise when he looked in the window of a novelty shop and saw a spinning top hovering lazily above a magnetized base, oblivious to Earnshaw’s theorem and suspended solely by magnetic repulsion.
If one magnet is suspended above another, with their same poles facing each other (say North-to-North) and hence repelling, the top magnet will just flip over unless it is spinning, and hence stabilized gyroscopically. But Earnshaw’s theorem (which also applies to arrays of magnets) says that the upper magnet will not hover in the same position, but will always have a tendency to slip off sideways.
This is what the spinning top (known as a levitron) did not do. As an old chief of mine used to say, fact is the death of hypothesis, and Michael was able to account for this new fact when he proved that, while Earnshaw’s theorem remains correct for non-rotating objects, this is not so for spinning objects, which can stay hovering indefinitely within a narrow range of conditions for magnetic strength, weight, and rate of spinning.

[ . . . ]

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various ... ion-fraens

3D MODEL DESCRIPTION

For detailed building instructions look here: https://fraensengineering.com/magnetic-levitation/

In this video I build a levitated magnet. The video should serve as a guide to build it yourself. I show technical details, circuit diagrams, Arduino codes and much more. I also show my workflow for making circuit boards. An electromagnet was wound with 0.5mm copper wire. A Hall sensor was used to query the position of the magnet. This reacts to magnetic fields. The electromagnet is controlled with an arduino.

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gu4Gx1 ... jLnHpclBQm

“Free” energy:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/11/ ... generator/

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story ... e-devices/

https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-ut ... -the-norm/

https://kenall.com/Kenall-Files/Product ... estudy.pdf

I seriously wouldn't take the idea of free energy seriously.

TINSTAFE!

"There Is No Such Thing As Free Energy!"

You didn't use to hang out on AFU did you?

Loved the ION drive drone. Looks fun..

Was thinking about free energy principle and all the thermodynamic stuff. didn't realize you are talkibg about infinite energy.

Absolutely fascinating questions — and very glad to see them asked in a serious context.

There's a lot of historical depth to concepts like Schauberger's vortex dynamics or Searl's magnetic systems. But if we want to bring these ideas into the scope of modern theoretical physics, the key isn't to ask "where is the infinite energy?", but rather:

“What are the underlying spacetime dynamics that allow emergent effects like gravitation or inertia to appear as forces — and could those dynamics be modulated?”

Recent geometric approaches — including spiral-temporal drift models (SZG) and recursive field frameworks — suggest that:

• The vacuum isn’t empty, but a structured, anisotropic field with driftable properties.
  
  Energy is not something that "runs out" but is a function of geometric configuration.
  
  What we perceive as inertia or mass may be the anchoring of drift-based wave structures.

So while traditional physics sees gravitation as curvature from mass-energy density, there's increasing evidence that drift anchoring (via recursive metrics in φ(x,t)) might simulate gravitational wells — even without traditional mass.

Free energy, then, isn't a violation of thermodynamics — it's a reframing:
Systems can extract structure from ordered geometric drift — not “from nothing,” but from unrecognized symmetries.

Books like “Living Energies” and Paul LaViolette’s work are good instincts. But to get serious traction today, you'd want to also explore connections to:

• Nonlinear quantum carpets
  
  Recursive space-time formalisms
  
  Variational principles over spiral time fields

Happy to share more if there's interest — some of this is closer to being simulatable than most people assume.