The second way is to "trap the electron gas electrons" in a separate collector

2) The second way is to "trap the electron gas electrons" in a separate collector, feed "currentfree
potential" to the collector from a primary battery or other source of potential, and collect a
bunch of excess energy (potential) in the collector's "penned up free electron 'horses'" waiting to
carry the excess energy to the load and dissipate it there, once they have been released. Then,
one switches the primary potential source away from the collector, while the "energy-loaded
horses" are still trapped and straining at the bit, so that no work can be done -- by those
agitated horses when they stampede out of there -- on the internal resistance of the primary
source, to destroy or reduce it. In the same switching action, the collector with its "snorting but
still trapped electron horses" is switched across the load to form a totally separate circuit with it,
having nothing at all to do with the original primary source of potential. Then, the agitated
horses are released, and thunder out through the load, scattering their riders (excess energy) in
all directions in the load, producing work/heat and powering the load. They will also charge on
around to the reverse side of the collector, and kill its charge separation (kill its potential) as
well, just as does any ordinary circuit.
The major disadvantage of method 1, as we presently have seen it done (however, check
Barrett's demonstration that Tesla's patented circuitry is capable of doing it by circuitry alone), is
that time-reversed electrical energy is produced. So Method 1 has some serious drawbacks.
"Time-reversed energy stuff", which should stay in the atomic nucleus as Newtonian 3rd law
reactions and 3rd-law energy exchanges, is dragged out. Unusual effects on biological systems
can occur. Antigravity effects can occur. Other hidden processes in the universes, that affect
the atomic nucleus, can be gated into the external circuitry, causing disaster. Monopoles can
be deposited in the magnets, causing them to explode like hand grenades. Most of the new
"massive time-reverse energy" phenomenology is still unknown. One cannot at this stage of
ignorance adequately guarantee human safety. I presently don't see just how this kind of
energy can pass an Underwriter Laboratories' testing and certification, until a lot more
exhaustive work is done to understand the new phenomenology.
Method 2, however, yields ordinary, garden-variety, positive-time electrical energy. The method
presented in the paper is my own discovery. No unusual time-reversed phenomena are
involved. It would appear to be eminently practical to produce and certify power units based on
Method 2. The phenomenology and risks are the same as for ordinary, time-forward power
systems.
Method 2 has another unique characteristic: as a system, all the subsystems are already in the
literature and validated. They have just not previously been put together in this fashion. So
development of the system really represents an "integration" problem only, after one first does a
little development of a proper degenerate semiconductor material (DSM). In other words, one
first develops (and tests) the exact doping materials and percentage, to get a DSM material that
is still a good conductor but has a relaxation time of -- say -- one tenth of a millisecond. One
builds the wires from the battery to the collector out of this new DSM material. If one uses a
capacitor for the collector, the plates must be made out of the new DSM material, not out of
normal "pure conductor" material. Then one develops a switcher that switches in one tenth (or
less) the relaxation time of the DSM, or in this case in one hundredth of a millisecond. That
switching time, of course, is easy for any decent electronic technician or electronic engineer.
One also develops a timing circuit that will (1) sense the status of the discharge of the collector
energy through the load, and (2) trigger the switching at the correct times so that a smooth twocycle
(collect, discharge) process results. Note that the lengths of cycle one and cycle two are
not necessarily equal at all. One may use multiple collectors/loads simultaneously, cascaded
collectors/loads, etc. Hundreds of variations are possible and feasible.
It is not possible to do anything with this discovery in a normal manner. I would dearly like to be
economically independent, so I could work full time in my efforts on free energy, antigravity,
extended EM healing, cancer, etc. Many orthodox scientists will also fiercely resist this upstart
notion of "overunity" electrical machines to the bitter end. When powerful economic interests
realize one has such thing for real, one is certainly going to be stopped, jailed, or killed, or he
may just "mysteriously vanish" and never be seen again.
So I just freely released and distributed my discovery of method 2, in the paper "The Final
Secret of Free Energy". It is deliberately targeted toward technicians, junior engineers, and
educated laymen. (The principles and definitions raised, however, can be debated to the nth
degree by knowledgeable foundation scientists). The paper has already been distributed
worldwide. Now the principles and definitions are available to everyone. If they are in error,
shortly that will be proven in spades. If they are correct, that will also be established shortly.
Anyone who wishes can develop and patent a particular application. There's no longer any way
to stop this information from being disseminated and utilized. I hope that a flurry of
development and patenting activity will result around the world. Get cheap, clean electrical
energy to everyone. Bring on the electric auto, clean up the noxious auto exhausts, get rid of
giant oil spills, and clean up the biosphere.