What books to read if my ultimate objective is free-energy study?

[spaceboy909]

Hi all. I am actually wanting to learn on my own, but this seems to be the closest forum for this question.

I have always like the sciences; had biology, chemistry and a semester of physics back in high school, and did well in math...when I tried. :)

But in recent years I have become fascinated with the idea of free energy (Tesla, et. al). I realize that that subject matter is probably relegated to the high IQ brackets, but nonetheless, if my objective is to theorize and experiment in the field, then is there a particular learning path I should take to get there; perhaps a fork in the road that a traditional physics student would not take; certain books with a different take, or broader range, that would suit me better?

I am interested in taking the most direct path to the subject matter.

I'm primarily looking for free resources on the net, however, purchasing a book or two is probably within my means. Thanks for any help!

 

[Caramon]

The most direct path to become a theorist or experimentalist in a sub-field of physics is to obtain a PhD in Physics. Generally you will need to choose either experimental or theoretical work as you will find yourself stretched thin between the two.

In order to start learning higher level physics you need to know Calculus and up to a basic understanding of momentum and impulse, forces and fields, electromagnetic radiation, atomic physics, and most importantly an excellent grasp on high school math.

If you do not at least have a basic understanding of the preceding areas of study and would not be able to get 80% on a final exam if there was a random smattering of 50 questions thrown at you from those areas it is not practical to attempt to tackle Quantum Mechanics. Go pick up: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486409244/?tag=pfamazon01-20 and you'll see what I mean.

I'm not sure how old you are but you MUST ATTEND UNIVERSITY. Although it may have been possible in the past (such as late 1800s and early 1900s as you are referring to Tesla and the gang after) but it impossible now to make any contribution whatsoever without a PhD in Physics or a related-field. I suggest you apply for a Bachelor of Science major in Physics at the school which is most practical for you to attend and see how you enjoy your first year classes which will generally consist of:
-Calculus I, II
-Linear Algebra I, II
-Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity
-Fluids and Waves
-Science Elective
-Science Elective
-Social Science Elective
-Arts Elective

Self-study is impractical these days and nearly impossible. Additionally, I think you need to re-evaluate your motives here. Why is it that you find the study of free energy so interesting? Do you even understand the implications or what it is? If it is an interesting concept to you and you feel you want to carry on Nikola Tesla's work because his is an awesome dood then you probably have a romanticized view of the field of physics and need to stop reading Brian Greene and Michio Kaku books.

 

[Nabeshin]

Go read a book on thermodynamics. If you still think "free energy" is possible, your best bet is to run far far away from science and probably just to start connecting magnets to something in your basement, then make a poorly filmed youtube video and accompanying website describing your crackpottery.

 

[spaceboy909]

The most direct path to become a theorist or experimentalist in a sub-field of physics is to obtain a PhD in Physics. Generally you will need to choose either experimental or theoretical work as you will find yourself stretched thin between the two.

In order to start learning higher level physics you need to know Calculus and up to a basic understanding of momentum and impulse, forces and fields, electromagnetic radiation, atomic physics, and most importantly an excellent grasp on high school math.

If you do not at least have a basic understanding of the preceding areas of study and would not be able to get 80% on a final exam if there was a random smattering of 50 questions thrown at you from those areas it is not practical to attempt to tackle Quantum Mechanics. Go pick up: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486409244/?tag=pfamazon01-20 and you'll see what I mean.

I'm not sure how old you are but you MUST ATTEND UNIVERSITY. Although it may have been possible in the past (such as late 1800s and early 1900s as you are referring to Tesla and the gang after) but it impossible now to make any contribution whatsoever without a PhD in Physics or a related-field. I suggest you apply for a Bachelor of Science major in Physics at the school which is most practical for you to attend and see how you enjoy your first year classes which will generally consist of:
-Calculus I, II
-Linear Algebra I, II
-Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity
-Fluids and Waves
-Science Elective
-Science Elective
-Social Science Elective
-Arts Elective

Self-study is impractical these days and nearly impossible. Additionally, I think you need to re-evaluate your motives here. Why is it that you find the study of free energy so interesting? Do you even understand the implications or what it is? If it is an interesting concept to you and you feel you want to carry on Nikola Tesla's work because his is an awesome dood then you probably have a romanticized view of the field of physics and need to stop reading Brian Greene and Michio Kaku books.

I appreciate the response and the suggestions. No doubt I do have a somewhat romanticized view of things, but I'm also fully aware this would neither be easy or quick. In fact, it is very possible that after study of just one or two books, I may shelve the idea altogether...but I may not.

I'm 37, and for numerous personal reasons, as well as financial, a traditional education is just not an option for me. I realize that that essentially derails me from the start, with respect to traditionally excepted paths to success in fields like this, but I have always been very stubborn, and don't mind taking the off beat path.

I also have a student background in computer programming and electronics, and was originally planning to get a BS in electronic engineering and computer programming at Devry, so it wouldn't be a waste for me to get started on the path; worst case, I would just diverge back into computer science and electronic engineering.

Ftr, I am interested in free energy because I believe that our civilization cannot survive by continuing on the path we have always known.

 

[chiro]

Hi all. I am actually wanting to learn on my own, but this seems to be the closest forum for this question.

I have always like the sciences; had biology, chemistry and a semester of physics back in high school, and did well in math...when I tried. :)

But in recent years I have become fascinated with the idea of free energy (Tesla, et. al). I realize that that subject matter is probably relegated to the high IQ brackets, but nonetheless, if my objective is to theorize and experiment in the field, then is there a particular learning path I should take to get there; perhaps a fork in the road that a traditional physics student would not take; certain books with a different take, or broader range, that would suit me better?

I am interested in taking the most direct path to the subject matter.

I'm primarily looking for free resources on the net, however, purchasing a book or two is probably within my means. Thanks for any help!

Hey there spaceboy.

Despite what a lot of people say, there is actually proper research into over unity energy systems.

If you want to do serious research, you have to understand how scientists understand science and then based on that, see how you can build on that knowledge, or maybe find out if anything is not 100% right, where anomalies exist that you can take advantage of.

Firstly you need to understand how we get energy. Most common methods of extracting energy are very primitive: even nuclear energy boils water that uses steam to generate AC power.

My advice for this is take an engineering stream and take as many maths, physics, and maybe even some chemistry courses. Take a few computer courses as well.

Go to an accredited university and take science courses where you are actually in a lab doing experiments, measuring data and making inferences, or explaining what you are seeing.

Once you have built up your knowledge that resembles that of the current body of science, you then should analyze what you have learned through science (this is why I emphasize labs) and see how you can extend it.

People will not take you seriously if you do not attend a recognized institution and have a PhD that has been defended in front of more experienced scientists.

There is actually work out there written by experienced scientists and not your basement amateur scientist type that makes the real free energy science look like a kook.

One thing that you should do when you learn science is to understand in every perspective you can, the assumptions that end up creating the models.

If you are to extend scientific knowledge, you really have to understand the principles that the current knowledge is built upon. This is what the pioneers do. If you are learning electromagnetism, you need to know what assumptions have been made to derive Maxwells equations. You need to reconcile the experiments that have been made to the mathematical assumptions that are being used.

When you become experienced enough, you may be able to find anomalies and generalize the assumptions to take into account the anomalies.

Despite the predictive power of our current knowledge of science, there are tonnes of effects that are unexplained and are ripe for researchers to work on.

I wish you the best of luck because if you work in this field, you are most likely going to be ostracized/isolated, mocked, and all kinds of things: you are going against the threads of thought just like many scientists before us have. If you are truly passionate about this, then I wish you the best of luck, because you are going to need a lot of it.

 

[Oriako]

originally planning to get a BS in electronic engineering and computer programming at Devry

No one intending on ever doing anything useful in academics should attend Devry. It is a pseudo-institution where you will receive a sub-par education that no one will take seriously.

 

[spaceboy909]

Hey there spaceboy.

Despite what a lot of people say, there is actually proper research into over unity energy systems.

If you want to do serious research, you have to understand how scientists understand science and then based on that, see how you can build on that knowledge, or maybe find out if anything is not 100% right, where anomalies exist that you can take advantage of.

Firstly you need to understand how we get energy. Most common methods of extracting energy are very primitive: even nuclear energy boils water that uses steam to generate AC power.

My advice for this is take an engineering stream and take as many maths, physics, and maybe even some chemistry courses. Take a few computer courses as well.

Go to an accredited university and take science courses where you are actually in a lab doing experiments, measuring data and making inferences, or explaining what you are seeing.

Once you have built up your knowledge that resembles that of the current body of science, you then should analyze what you have learned through science (this is why I emphasize labs) and see how you can extend it.

People will not take you seriously if you do not attend a recognized institution and have a PhD that has been defended in front of more experienced scientists.

There is actually work out there written by experienced scientists and not your basement amateur scientist type that makes the real free energy science look like a kook.

One thing that you should do when you learn science is to understand in every perspective you can, the assumptions that end up creating the models.

If you are to extend scientific knowledge, you really have to understand the principles that the current knowledge is built upon. This is what the pioneers do. If you are learning electromagnetism, you need to know what assumptions have been made to derive Maxwells equations. You need to reconcile the experiments that have been made to the mathematical assumptions that are being used.

When you become experienced enough, you may be able to find anomalies and generalize the assumptions to take into account the anomalies.

Despite the predictive power of our current knowledge of science, there are tonnes of effects that are unexplained and are ripe for researchers to work on.

I wish you the best of luck because if you work in this field, you are most likely going to be ostracized/isolated, mocked, and all kinds of things: you are going against the threads of thought just like many scientists before us have. If you are truly passionate about this, then I wish you the best of luck, because you are going to need a lot of it.

I appreciate your words and advice. Having listened to (I can hear the groans now...) Coast to Coast AM for 15 years, I'm familiar with the treatment that scientists receive who dare to stray from peer reviewed and approved paths.

This is one reason why the last thing on my 'scientific agenda' is to land a high paying job. Additionally, I have always been a misfit in just about every way, and I have tended to reject traditional paths. I don't like playing by the rules, and I dislike being told that I have to! :)

If I am to discover anything, or further anything on the subject of free energy, I know the only way it will happen is if I make my own way, but of course, I still need general guidance to help find the right learning materials and make sure that I'm not skipping anything critical.

I have found the learning materials section of the site, so I'm going to start there. Any further suggestions are welcome!

 

[spaceboy909]

No one intending on ever doing anything useful in academics should attend Devry. It is a pseudo-institution where you will receive a sub-par education that no one will take seriously.

Well, back in the 'day' (1992), it was THE vocational school to go to for hands on electronic engineering, and they had something like 98% job placement with IBM alone. That number changed later after IBM layoffs, etc, and I have no idea what the number is now, but their emphasis is on hands-on, real world practice with state of the art equipment; something you don't always get at college. (I've heard too many nightmare stories of out of date texts and equipment at colleges; students coming out who can barely build basic cirucits)

Employers like people who can walk onto a job and go straight to work, as opposed to having to train/retrain them to bring them up to speed.

Devry, ITT and others are geared towards actual job placement in hands-on technician and engineering jobs, as opposed to theory. For theoretical work, absolutely, go to a traditional school. I spent 2 years at a local votech back then, and I had more than one job offer before I left (kicking myself for not taking it now)

 

[spaceboy909]

@Oriako Ooops, I reread your response; I guess I misinterpreted, but I never meant to imply that I originally intended to go to Devry as a path to theoretical physics. :) That was just an electronics career path.

 

[MacLaddy]

Like you, I came to this site as an avid Coast listener- Streamlink and all. I also was considering the online Devry route for electrical engineering, and I had some wild notions about free energy and how things work. (I also wanted to see Hoagland debunked, can't stand that guy)

Because of this quest I actually decided that the only real option for me was in a serious academic environment, so I enrolled in an EE program at my local university. Keep in mind that I am 33, and I dropped out of high school when I was fifteen. I didn't think I could do it financially either, but there are soooo many options out there to help pay for school. You just need to look for 'em.

Long story short, I have old George Noory to thank for going back to school, and if you want to be serious about learning this stuff then you should probably consider the same.

You only live once...

 

[Angry Citizen]

I was also once interested in over-unity devices. Then I read why it's physically impossible. My advice is to pick up a physics book, flip to conservation of energy, then flip to thermodynamics. You'll then understand why it's a futile effort, and why the only way energy can change in a system is if it's lost in the form of heat or some other aspect of friction. Energy can never magically appear. Ever.

If you're unwilling to go into a traditional physics or engineering program, then you are relegated to the status of private inventor. These days, with technology so specialized and topics of interest so advanced, you're out of your league. The days of solitary tinkerers in their garage are essentially over.

I wish you luck in your future endeavors. While you may not realize your error in regard to free energy, I don't feel this detracts from what you've shown so far -- a curiosity about how machinery works and how it may be used to its fullest extent. I recommend you attend school for mechanical or electrical engineering -- a real school, not Devry. If I can do it, you sure can!

 

[spaceboy909]

Like you, I came to this site as an avid Coast listener- Streamlink and all. I also was considering the online Devry route for electrical engineering, and I had some wild notions about free energy and how things work. (I also wanted to see Hoagland debunked, can't stand that guy)

Very interesting! My story is somewhat similar, except that I loved Hoagland and all of the wild theories! He also inspired me to give college a serious 2nd look, and I considered going into astrophysics. That was back in 1996. I wished I had gone with something back then as my life was much more suited for it then; everything is chaotic now.

Because of this quest I actually decided that the only real option for me was in a serious academic environment, so I enrolled in an EE program at my local university. Keep in mind that I am 33, and I dropped out of high school when I was fifteen. I didn't think I could do it financially either, but there are soooo many options out there to help pay for school. You just need to look for 'em.

Long story short, I have old George Noory to thank for going back to school, and if you want to be serious about learning this stuff then you should probably consider the same.

You only live once...

Well, as far as careers go, I'm headed in the direction of setting up my own business writing software.

I think I'll just run solo on the physics agenda for now; if I manage to reach a point where I feel I can't properly further my knowledge without actually sitting in a classroom, then I'll take another look at it.

 

[chiro]

I was also once interested in over-unity devices. Then I read why it's physically impossible. My advice is to pick up a physics book, flip to conservation of energy, then flip to thermodynamics. You'll then understand why it's a futile effort, and why the only way energy can change in a system is if it's lost in the form of heat or some other aspect of friction. Energy can never magically appear. Ever.

If you're unwilling to go into a traditional physics or engineering program, then you are relegated to the status of private inventor. These days, with technology so specialized and topics of interest so advanced, you're out of your league. The days of solitary tinkerers in their garage are essentially over.

I wish you luck in your future endeavors. While you may not realize your error in regard to free energy, I don't feel this detracts from what you've shown so far -- a curiosity about how machinery works and how it may be used to its fullest extent. I recommend you attend school for mechanical or electrical engineering -- a real school, not Devry. If I can do it, you sure can!

While I agree on the most part, I still think that many scientists and engineers are taught to think inside the box rather than outside.

The fact is that most scientists and engineers are taught so much in a period of 3-4 years and even more for graduate work that the thinking is within the bounds of what has been rammed down peoples throats for the undergraduate period.

Its kind of a double edged sword: if people didn't learn this then most people would spend perhaps decades figuring out this stuff on their own and clearly that is not productive. The other end of the argument is that people are hammered with stuff and are not encouraged to be too creative and this may be due to an issue of productivity.

Of course research is obviously a more creative process (as it requires it in most if not all cases to varying degrees).

Also Angry Citizen I believe it was Lord Kelvin that said "Flying Machines are Physically Impossible" just some food for thought ;)

 

[spaceboy909]

I was also once interested in over-unity devices. Then I read why it's physically impossible. My advice is to pick up a physics book, flip to conservation of energy, then flip to thermodynamics. You'll then understand why it's a futile effort, and why the only way energy can change in a system is if it's lost in the form of heat or some other aspect of friction. Energy can never magically appear. Ever.

If you're unwilling to go into a traditional physics or engineering program, then you are relegated to the status of private inventor. These days, with technology so specialized and topics of interest so advanced, you're out of your league. The days of solitary tinkerers in their garage are essentially over.

I wish you luck in your future endeavors. While you may not realize your error in regard to free energy, I don't feel this detracts from what you've shown so far -- a curiosity about how machinery works and how it may be used to its fullest extent. I recommend you attend school for mechanical or electrical engineering -- a real school, not Devry. If I can do it, you sure can!

I recall reading some on the laws of thermodynamics, and certainly I've heard countless discussion of it on CTC-AM and other shows. The thing is, there are theories out there about 'free energy' that don't violate those laws, IIRC. And that's what I'm interested in.

It's not that I'm seeking to disprove the laws of thermodynamics; I simply believe that there may be other sources of energy as yet undiscovered, e.g., the 'ether', dark matter, etc. If there are other sources of energy, tapping into them presumably wouldn't violate any current thermodynamic law; it would work with it.

 

[Angry Citizen]

While I agree on the most part, I still think that many scientists and engineers are taught to think inside the box rather than outside.

The fact is that most scientists and engineers are taught so much in a period of 3-4 years and even more for graduate work that the thinking is within the bounds of what has been rammed down peoples throats for the undergraduate period.

Its kind of a double edged sword: if people didn't learn this then most people would spend perhaps decades figuring out this stuff on their own and clearly that is not productive. The other end of the argument is that people are hammered with stuff and are not encouraged to be too creative and this may be due to an issue of productivity.

Of course research is obviously a more creative process (as it requires it in most if not all cases to varying degrees).

Also Angry Citizen I believe it was Lord Kelvin that said "Flying Machines are Physically Impossible" just some food for thought ;)

My father told me something very similar. I understand where you're coming from. I'm probably one of the few scientifically-minded individuals who discounts the impossibility of superluminal travel -- but that's because Einstein's special relativity is clearly incomplete, and I believe there could be ways around the c-barrier.

However, what we're discussing is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of physics: Conservation of energy. Over-unity devices challenge that which physicists rely on every day for their understanding of physics. My physics professor once told me that the first thing a physicist does when looking at a physics problem is to see whether conservation of energy can solve it.

If conservation of energy can be violated, then physics is meaningless. There has never been an observed instance of energy increase in any system. It's a physical law -- hence my certitude.

 

[viscousflow]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199232369/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Buy that book and read it. Then return to us with your opinion.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I simply believe that there may be other sources of energy as yet undiscovered, e.g., the 'ether'

There is no such thing as the 'ether'. The 'ether' was created because light was considered a wave at the time of the ether's postulation, and wave-particle duality had not been discovered yet.

dark matter

We haven't even verified the existence of dark matter. Like the ether, it was created to explain an inconsistency -- notably galaxy formation. How can one extrapolate properties about dark matter when its very existence is in question?

Please understand that energy is energy, whether it's 'dark' or not. All things observed have been shown to obey conservation of energy. Nothing 'gets around it', so far as we know.

 

[chiro]

My father told me something very similar. I understand where you're coming from. I'm probably one of the few scientifically-minded individuals who discounts the impossibility of superluminal travel -- but that's because Einstein's special relativity is clearly incomplete, and I believe there could be ways around the c-barrier.

However, what we're discussing is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of physics: Conservation of energy. Over-unity devices challenge that which physicists rely on every day for their understanding of physics. My physics professor once told me that the first thing a physicist does when looking at a physics problem is to see whether conservation of energy can solve it.

If conservation of energy can be violated, then physics is meaningless. There has never been an observed instance of energy increase in any system. It's a physical law -- hence my certitude.

I can't really give an educated opinion about conservation of energy since I'm not a physicist or chemist.

I have taken a few physics classes though and I recall that when we take heat out of a system that particles are meant to come to a standstill as you suck all the heat out and the temperature goes to 0 kelvin.

But apparently when this is done, the particles still have energy and I think its called zero point energy if I remember correctly.

In a thermodynamic viewpoint, this energy seems to throw a hammer in the works wouldn't it? Something with no heat should have no energy in the classical sense? I'd like to hear your views on this

 

[Angry Citizen]

I have taken a few physics classes though and I recall that when we take heat out of a system that particles are meant to come to a standstill as you suck all the heat out and the temperature goes to 0 kelvin.

In theory. Physically, though, as temperature is the measure of kinetic energy in a particle (or, more accurately, a group of particles), to send a particle into a complete standstill is impossible. Zero Kelvin is like a limiting value in calculus. One can only approach the value without ever actually equaling the value. Also, 'sucking the heat out' (the engineer in me cringes at the terminology, haha -- heat is defined as the change in thermal energy, so it's not a physical property in and of itself) implies that the thermal energy goes elsewhere. As you learn in introductory chemistry, q of a reaction equals -q of the medium through which the heat transfer took place. Thermal energy -- and energy itself -- is thus conserved.

But apparently when this is done, the particles still have energy and I think its called zero point energy if I remember correctly.

I understand zero-point energy to be the baseline energy of the quantum world. Since energy transference is reliant on difference in energies being equalized -- I.E. transferred from a higher state to a lower state -- the fact that zero-point energy is literally the smallest unit of energy means that one would actually lose energy by attempting to exploit it. You would be transferring energy to the quantum baseline energy, not the other way around. But I'm not well-versed on quantum physics, and I'd appreciate any corrections.

 

[MacLaddy]

I think I'll just run solo on the physics agenda for now; if I manage to reach a point where I feel I can't properly further my knowledge without actually sitting in a classroom, then I'll take another look at it.

Well, if you are insistent on going alone, then I would recommend www.khanacademy.org. He posts very good videos on many advanced topics.

 

[chiro]

In theory. Physically, though, as temperature is the measure of kinetic energy in a particle (or, more accurately, a group of particles), to send a particle into a complete standstill is impossible. Zero Kelvin is like a limiting value in calculus. One can only approach the value without ever actually equaling the value. Also, 'sucking the heat out' (the engineer in me cringes at the terminology, haha -- heat is defined as the change in thermal energy, so it's not a physical property in and of itself) implies that the thermal energy goes elsewhere. As you learn in introductory chemistry, q of a reaction equals -q of the medium through which the heat transfer took place. Thermal energy -- and energy itself -- is thus conserved.



I understand zero-point energy to be the baseline energy of the quantum world. Since energy transference is reliant on difference in energies being equalized -- I.E. transferred from a higher state to a lower state -- the fact that zero-point energy is literally the smallest unit of energy means that one would actually lose energy by attempting to exploit it. You would be transferring energy to the quantum baseline energy, not the other way around. But I'm not well-versed on quantum physics, and I'd appreciate any corrections.

Thanks for the explanations. The limiting case for zero kelvin makes sense. To me (and this is my opinion) it would not make sense to have a physical case where there is no energy since nothing would change and would remain static.

I'm wondering if you can answer a question about energy in accelerating systems. With Newtonian physics the conservation principle is easy to understand. In this case its basically a linear relationship when you are transferring energy from one thing to another (like in for example a collision).

But it seems that relativity with its non-linearity would cause a violation of conservation with energy, especially with things going at speeds close to the speed of light. Is there a way to explain that or is there a conservation at some other level?

 

[Angry Citizen]

But it seems that relativity with its non-linearity would cause a violation of conservation with energy, especially with things going at speeds close to the speed of light. Is there a way to explain that or is there a conservation at some other level?

Think of relativistic speeds as simply the opposite case of the absolute zero limiting value. Whereas absolute zero is the total cessation of movement, relativity is approaching the point at which motion is absolute. Absolute zero is the complete removal of energy, and is thus impossible; light speed is the conversion of infinite energy into pure translational motion, and is thus impossible. The point in both of these is that energy is an intrinsic property of existence. Without energy, an object cannot exist. Since all objects must exist for eternity in some state or another, even in the lowest possible energy state for electromagnetic radiation, then taking that energy away is impossible. Both of these states require taking away that energy completely, either in the form of complete dissociation of the object in question (absolute zero) or the complete dissociation of all other objects in question (infinite energy in a light-speed massive object).

There is no violation of conservation of energy in subluminal systems. Energy is not being created or destroyed by relativistic systems. What's notable about Einsteinian physics is that it takes greater and greater force to accelerate a massive object to 2.99x10^8 m/s. Energy isn't being lost in the process; it's just being used more and more inefficiently as the velocity approaches c.

I'm sorry, this explanation probably isn't very good or particularly useful. Richard Feynman I am not.

 

[deluks917]

Maybe everyone n this thread is wrong. I suggest you go ahead and study. This is a good site: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html" .

 

[spaceboy909]

Well, if you are insistent on going alone, then I would recommend www.khanacademy.org. He posts very good videos on many advanced topics.

Maybe everyone n this thread is wrong. I suggest you go ahead and study. This is a good site: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html".

Thanks for the links guys; I've got 'em bookmarked. I found what seems to be a good college level starter book on Amazon on sale for $10. Schaum's Outline of College Physics, 10th edition, so between that and the web stuff I should be off to a good start.