# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: a circuit that produces overunity results.  (Read 99064 times)

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #125 on: 06/06/2009 19:32:00 »
Quote from: witsend
I agree.  There's way to many ideas out there.  But how fascinating.  I've just seen Photonic theory.  Where did that come from?  It must have been sleeping lower down in the list.  And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production?  I've got plenty to keep me busy.  Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations.  I might have to ask you to define them for me.
The two papers you reference share very similar concepts. One of the main concepts is the size of the electron. We both see this size as having a circumference equal to the wavelength of a photon of the same mass equivalence.

I've studied many alternative theories; and you are right, there are lots of real gems. Many are similar to the device you propose. One seeks to charge an inductor, then break the circuit and capture the back EMF generated by the field collapse of the inductor. This looks like what you're doing.

Then there are many over-unity claims using AC motors in tuned circuits. These can be very efficient, as in our newer air conditioners, but none are really over-unity.

When I think of tuned circuits producing huge amounts of energy, I must return to Con Edison. They had problems with a huge welding company. The welder would spike the transmission lines so terribly that the generators would cause everyone to suffer.
How to solve the problem? Well they used a series capacitance circuit. If you start with 13,000 volts and you make a mistake in the design you surely will get over unity. You could get a million volt resonant spike.
Is that over unity? Surly from a voltage viewpoint it is. From an energy viewpoint, resonant circuits may appear to be over unity some of the time. especially if that one million volt pulse comes into your building. Everyone would be cooked.

Some people used to have fun with the telephone company long ago. They would produce over-unity circuits and destroy phone switchboards.

These circuits are not perpetual motion. They exist and can be scarry or fun. The Con Edision circuits were well designed. They did not resonate. No one died. However the series street lighting circuits did kill many linemen. The problem is that once a simple several thousand volt series circuit becomes broken, the transformer rises to extremely high voltages.  A poor lineman would pick up the wire and it would kill him. Thus another type of over unity circuit is very destructive.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #126 on: 06/06/2009 20:07:37 »
Yes; any switched inductive circuit produces over-unity voltage. I gleaned from witsend that over-unity power was the claim. The circuit reminds me of similar ones that charge an inductor or capacitor, then switch off the circuit and discharge the inductor or capacitor through a load. The assumption was that the discharge current was free, which is not the case.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 20:16:26 by Vern »

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #127 on: 06/06/2009 21:09:09 »
Yes; any switched inductive circuit produces over-unity voltage. I gleaned from witsend that over-unity power was the claim. The circuit reminds me of similar ones that charge an inductor or capacitor, then switch off the circuit and discharge the inductor or capacitor through a load. The assumption was that the discharge current was free, which is not the case.

It seemed to me that many people might confuse over unity voltage with over energy. To me the only source of overenergy is the stored energy of the atoms such as radioactive or the stored energy of the proton.
In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.
I used to like to build relay energy sources from a charged capacitor. With no apparent power the relay would work. However the energy was built up prior to the action.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #128 on: 06/06/2009 22:03:54 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.
I'm surprised that you keep quarks as a part of matter since your dot wave doesn't resemble the standard model photon. What is your concept of a photon?

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #129 on: 06/06/2009 22:29:23 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.
I'm surprised that you keep quarks as a part of matter since your dot wave doesn't resemble the standard model photon. What is your concept of a photon?

As my theory went out to 130 universities a few months ago, I got about 10 responses. As I was getting the responses, I started to read several books on quarks. I also found Planks equations on the internet.
At the same time I found that my concept of a cloud of dot waves was not satisfactory.
Planks equations were very interesting. I came to accept the Plank radius of 1.616252E-35 as the min radius in the universe. Instead of my own minimum, I used Planks.
Thye net result of my latest studies and the comments from the Professors was that I came to accept the quarks as true. Then I realized that mass is a gyroscopic action.
My whole theory changed. Now let us look at a photon. It is a planar device. It oscillates from a particular radius to the Plank radius. At the same time it spins.
What happens if we spin a bipolar electric field?
A force is developed in the perpendicular direction. Thus the photon has a force perpendicular to its spin.
F = ma
The mass parallel to the plane is finite. The mass perpendicular to the plane is zero. Therefore the acceleration of a photon is infiniite.
The plane spinning wave goes from zero velocity to the limiting velocity with infinite acceleration because it has no mass opposing the motion.The limiting velocity is light speed.
Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #130 on: 07/06/2009 12:26:45 »
Jerry, I'm getting back to this point from your thread, only because it's relevant to this topic.

The mass of the photon is zero.  So.  If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any velocity at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.

If however, E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum then one can say that the energy of the photon, albeit without any mass - is indeed light speed.  But that equation is actually only saying that if it hasn't got mass then just check out its velocity and use that. What, for instance, if a theoretical particle had a negative mass quotient and a velocity of twice the speed of light?  Surely it's energy would still equate to its momentum?  Therefore,assuming it is half the mass of a photon, then it's energy quotient would be 2c?  So why any constraint to light speed unless there's also some theoretical constraint to something having less mass than a photon?  And if it is valid to conceptualise t- then it is also valid to conceptualise m-.

The problem with 'non-locality' is simple.  Paired particles are seen to adjust their spin simultaneously.  But the interesting thing is this.  If you influence the spin of the one particle of a pair the other automatically adjusts its spin to compensate.  This is known to exceed light speed and has been tested at separation distances of 11 kilometers.  It's an uncomfortable truth that light speed has been breached.  So why the insistance on any constraints.  I can see that light speed is the limit of any particles with mass.  I do not see why it should apply to particles that have no mass.  The question is, obviously, that if such particles exist they would be tachyons and how then would one ever detect them?  We need light to measure light.  We have no faster gauge.  If something therefore exceeded the speed of light and had less mass than a photon - then how does one actually prove the existence of such a particle?  It would forever be nothing more than a theoretical supposition.

« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 16:35:26 by witsend »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #131 on: 07/06/2009 13:10:55 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.

But we have studied photons relentlessly. Some are spin polarized so that they spin around an axis in the direction of their travel. This spin carries angular momentum that is conserved and conveyed to any impacted particle. Experiments testing this are very well documented. Some photons are not spin polarized and move through space with little or no spin.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #132 on: 07/06/2009 13:15:59 »
Quote from: witsend
The problem with 'non-locality' is simple.  Paired particles are seen to adjust their spin simultaneously.
This is not quite true. It comes from the Quantum Mechanical concept of superposition which states that the spin state of the paired particles are both up and down simultaneously until one is observed. Then both particles collapse into either up or down spin state. It is not a problem if you accept the premise that the particles acquired their spin state when they were created. There is no proof that the later is not the case. This is why it is not possible to use superposition as a communication tool.

This is yet another case where reality does not agree with QM theory; therefore reality is wrong.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 13:19:34 by Vern »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #133 on: 07/06/2009 13:53:23 »
Sophiecentaur, I've answered your question as to whether or not I'm true to science. Your answer - 'No advance in science since QM?  What a statement.' is based on what?  I never said that.  Not even close.  Yet again.  Do you read what I've written or do you imagine what I've written?  To put the question in gentler terms, is it a deliberate or unintended distortion of the truth?  Do you rely on these 'distortions' to invent grounds for criticism?  Or, to put it another way, is it your nature to criticise and when you can't find an excuse your own subconsious inventiveness kicks in?  I'm really interested.  You see I've seen all kinds of bluster.  But you've taken it to new dimensions.  Bluster a la Sophiecentaur.  Here's the recipe.  Take the object of a communication -  reverse it - then attack it.  Extraordinary.

But indeed, if you are equal to the task I would love you to make it work.  Put the apparatus together, make sure you've got a really good switch to control those duty cycles and sweep through the frequency range.  When it first goes into resonance then compare DC and ACrms voltage measurements.  If the former is less than the latter then compare it to my figures.  If it's out it wont be too far out, provided always that the inductance on the resistor approximates the value in the test.  It can be greater.  The more inductance the better.  I've no idea if there's an upper limit.  Then check the actual temperature rise and you'll find that the v squared over r analysis is out by some small factor.  That's attributed to losses in the system and phase lag.  When you've done this, then.  Get some colleagues to check the numbers, and then publish, or make a battery recharger cum camp site light or whatever application you can think of and then sell it.  Whatever you want.  If you can persuade someone to manufacture a really robust MOSFET you could also apply it to your average household geyser. Maybe you could make up the difference still needed to pay for you yacht.  And it wouldn't need to take you away from your part-time teaching post.  Do it as a hobby.

The numbers in my last post explain the difference in 'SIZE' between the electron and the proton - the proton being precisely 1836 times greater than the electron.  Actually not quite.  It's a small fraction greater than this. I allow for that fraction in the proposal that the second and third truant are two dimensional spheres.

There is a lot to understand in the model. Yet its also so simple.  I look to broken symmetry in magnetic fields as the source of ALL energy.

I go to some considerable lengths to show how the model accounts for hydrogen lines.  It is explained at length as the fusion between three electrons within a flux field some singularity that disturbs the otherwise orderly arrangement of magnetic strings.  The flux separates from the field at that moment when these three electrons fuse.  It results in the ejection of a single electron, those three truants that are within the boundary constraints of the field.  And the at that same instant is the fusion of the two truants and the one binding truant x 3 to form the proton.  Then also - for symmetry, is the incorporation to that structure of at least 1836 zipons that then orbit the atom. It becomes a closed system.  The electron, expelled from the proton is trapped in the orbiting field of zipons which become the atom's energy levels.  So.  I have proposed that these 'energy levels' are, in fact, orbiting fields of zipons.   I also account for the creation of more complex atoms resulting from further fusion where the zipons are extracted from this field or 'closed system'.  In other words in the periodic table the more complex the atom the less the number of zipons orbiting because they've been 'taken' from the initial quantum at that first singularity.  I also allow for the creation of deuterium at that same singularity where the hydrogen atoms are formed.  Possibly also tritium.  This, I propose accounts for the non-linear formation of atoms in that table.

You know what my actual challenge is?  To see if I can get you to take this seriously.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 15:35:18 by witsend »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #134 on: 07/06/2009 14:20:17 »
Vern - with respect - the actual proof of superluminal communication was established as the artificial influence on one particle that INSTANTANEOUSLY influenced the other in paired photons.

I am not referring here to the EPR Effect.

I would be glad if you or Jerry could answer the question regarding negative mass.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 14:38:58 by witsend »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #135 on: 07/06/2009 15:26:25 »
Vern - with respect - the actual proof of superluminal communication was established as the artificial influence on one particle that INSTANTANEOUSLY influenced the other in paired photons.

I am not referring here to the EPR Effect.

I would be glad if you or Jerry could answer the question regarding negative mass.

I must have missed the question regarding negative mass. IMHO it does not exist.

Here's a Wiki article on photon entanglement. It seems to indicate that communication via the process is not possible.

Quote from: the article
Instantaneous communication by means of quantum entanglement is actually impossible because neither side can manipulate the state of the entangled particles, they can only measure it (see No-communication theorem). This fact means that if you measure one particle you cannot infer anything meaningful about the observers measuring the other particle, except you know what state they will measure, or have already measured. Thus causality is preserved.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 15:28:04 by Vern »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #136 on: 07/06/2009 15:32:09 »
The mass of the photon is zero.  So.  If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any mass at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.

If however, E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum then one can say that the energy of the photon, albeit without any mass - is indeed light speed.  But that equation is actually only saying that if it hasn't got mass then just check out its velocity and use that. What, for instance, if a theoretical particle had a negative mass quotient and a velocity of twice the speed of light?  Surely it's energy would still equate to its momentum?  Therefore,assuming it is half the mass of a photon, then it's energy quotient would be 2c?  So why any constraint to light speed unless there's also some theoretical constraint to something having less mass than a photon?  And if it is valid to conceptualise t- then it is also valid to conceptualise m-.

I've copied it again.  I'm so pleased you're on line.  Can you apply yourself to this?  What does IMHO stand for?

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #137 on: 07/06/2009 15:34:49 »
IMHO; In My Humble Opinion.

I'm editing so the post will change; I suspect that t- does not exist just as m- does not exist.

My speculation is that the photon does not HAVE mass the photon IS mass. Mass is electromagnetic change. It is a fact that any place you have electromagnetic change in a defined location, it is massive.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 15:38:22 by Vern »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #138 on: 07/06/2009 15:36:28 »
Thanks Vern
Sorry I thought I was previewing - in fact I was posting.  One day I'll find my way around this system.

I'm not questioning whether it exits or not.  My question is to do with that equation.  Does it preclude it's existence?
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 15:40:11 by witsend »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #139 on: 07/06/2009 15:47:13 »
Quote from: witsend
My question is to do with that equation.  Does it preclude it's existence?
I suspect that equations can not preclude, or include any reality. They can only describe it. I can easily make an equation that describes multiple dimensions, and I can add another dimension to it simply by inserting a comma and a number. The equation might have nothing to do with reality.

Here's a post by lightarrow describing photonic mass.

Quote from: lightarrow from another thread
A couple of photons not travelling in the same direction has mass, because you can find a reference frame where the total momentum of the system is 0:

E2 = (Mc2)2 + (cP)2

E = energy of the two photons' system = E1 + E2 = 2E1, with two equal photons, where E1 is a single photon's energy (energy is additive).
M = mass of the two photons' system.
P = momentum of the two photons' system = P1 + P2 where P1 and P2 are the momenta of the  photon 1 and 2, respectively.

A single photon's momentum is, in modulus: |P1| = |P2| = E1/c.

So, if the two photons are not travelling in the same direction:

|P| = |P1 + P2| < 2|P1| = 2E1/c

so

P2 = |P|2 < 4E12/c2   →   -P2 > -4E12/c2

(Mc2)2 = E2 - (cP)2 = (2E1)2 - c2P2 > 4E12 - c24E12/c2 = 0

so

(Mc2)2 > 0

that is:

M > 0.

So it's light which has mass when confined in a fixed space.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 15:50:15 by Vern »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #140 on: 07/06/2009 15:58:05 »

I understood that the E-mc squared somehow precluded anything exceeding light speeds.  The second equation modified this first to accommodate photons?  Are you saying that there is nothing, in fact, to preclude something exceeding light speed?  I'm holding my breath here for this answer.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #141 on: 07/06/2009 16:01:50 »
Jerry, I'm getting back to this point from your thread, only because it's relevant to this topic.

The mass of the photon is zero.  So.  If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any mass at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.

GG:
I haven't done much work on the photons. My main effort is the dot theory, gravity, the time of the universe since big bang, the red shift.
I only did the proton & neutron recently. In doing that it appeared to me that mass consists of three planes which would be photonic.

Therefore I do not agree that a photon has zero mass.If you could spin it around a sphere like an electron it would have mass. The regular photon traveling at light speed has mass perpendicular to the direction of travel. However since the photon is traveling at light speed, the mass per unit distance is very small.
A proton has a huge mass per unit distance because it is stationary. In a split second the photon mass is distributed over 186,000 miles. In effect it appears like zero but photons are attracted to the stars. Yet the calculation whould have to take account of the mass per unit distance rather than a point mass.

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #142 on: 07/06/2009 16:07:01 »
JerryGG38 - you've missed the point.  I'm trying to find out what principle in physics precludes superluminal speed.  Is is classical - or is it just a widely held opinion?

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #143 on: 07/06/2009 16:08:50 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.

But we have studied photons relentlessly. Some are spin polarized so that they spin around an axis in the direction of their travel. This spin carries angular momentum that is conserved and conveyed to any impacted particle. Experiments testing this are very well documented. Some photons are not spin polarized and move through space with little or no spin.

GG: I haven't done much thinking on the photon as related to my latest theories. Most of my prior knowledge was that photons spin. Why they have a spin of 1 rather than 1/2 is a question.
From your knowledge do you have photons with spins of 1/2?

If the spin is 1 or 0, then to me we have a dual photon with the positive and negative dot-waves spinning in the same or opposite directions. Therefore they can sum up or cancel spins.

However I have no information at the moment to study.

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #144 on: 07/06/2009 16:10:28 »
Thanks Jerry - don't worry.  Maybe Vern can answer this.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #145 on: 07/06/2009 16:21:46 »
JerryGG38 - you've missed the point.  I'm trying to find out what principle in physics precludes superluminal speed.  Is is classical - or is it just a widely held opinion?

As far as I am concerned I believe in the multi-lightspeed universe. Therefore I have coexisting universes from light speed zero up to light speed infinity. We live on a spherical surface at out light speed. As we move toward a common center the light speed is less. As we move outward the light speed moves upward toward infinity.

As far as our light speed is concerned, there are two different solutions to the red shift from the far stars. One solution is that the light speed is constantly changing.

Therefore there is no reason to believe that we do not interact with higher light speed photons and particles. All that we can say is that most of the stuff we interact with is at our light speed.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #146 on: 07/06/2009 16:21:57 »

I understood that the E-mc squared somehow precluded anything exceeding light speeds.  The second equation modified this first to accommodate photons?  Are you saying that there is nothing, in fact, to preclude something exceeding light speed?  I'm holding my breath here for this answer.
According to my speculation, mass can't exceed the speed of light because it is made of light. E = mc2 implies that the energy required to accelerate matter to light speed would be infinite. Since the equation seems to work for everything else, we find it useful.

I think that according to your speculation, matter should be limited to twice light speed.

BTW, E=mc2 alone doesn't preclude matter from light speed. It is the Lorentz transformations that preclude it, and the transformations seem to work for everything else as well.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 16:43:22 by Vern »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #147 on: 07/06/2009 16:24:33 »
Many, many thanks Vern.  I'm just not sure how you got to 2c but I love it.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #148 on: 07/06/2009 16:27:14 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
If the spin is 1 or 0, then to me we have a dual photon with the positive and negative dot-waves spinning in the same or opposite directions. Therefore they can sum up or cancel spins.
I think photon spin is taken as one to satisfy symmetry rules. Its spin is related to its polarization, but is different than a spin polarized photon. Spin polarization of a photon comes from the spin of its source, and it is conserved. Electron spin is measured. It shows that there are two states of an electron. This is how they get the spin 1/2. It is as if there are two sub particles spinning about a common axis at the speed of light.

Here is a physicist who describes an electron as two sub particles spinning at the speed of light.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 16:36:56 by Vern »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #149 on: 07/06/2009 17:00:54 »
Here is a physicist who describes an electron as two sub particles spinning at the speed of light. Vern

Not sure why the emphasis or the relevance?  Is'nt widely understood that an electron moves at light speed in its orbit around the nucleus?  And, equally, there are many many proposals that the electron is a composite.  Some say doublet - others triplet.  But it's not a unique concept surely?

I sort of understood that the whole wave/particle duality was based on the irreconcilability of knowing all states of any particle at any one time?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #149 on: 07/06/2009 17:00:54 »