The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: a circuit that produces overunity results.  (Read 99096 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #300 on: 16/06/2009 20:06:04 »
I've just looked.  Where?
Vern  - where do I find the thread on my device?  I've just looked.  Is it under something specific?
Just goggle overunity circuits- they have lots of similar circuits such as
http://jnaudin/free.frl/html/overtep.htm
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #301 on: 16/06/2009 20:55:33 »
It is a link. Just click it. Click Here Vern

I did that.  I just get the 'front page' so to speak.  Where is my circuit actually part of a thread?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #302 on: 16/06/2009 21:17:36 »
I didn't see your circuit but there were similar ones there.

Tom Bearden has a list of over-unity devices.

Quote from: the link
"There are at least 20 or more legitimate COP>1.0 EM power systems by various inventors and researchers in the U.S. alone"—Tom Bearden
 

Note:  A number of working overunity devices can be built from the plans posted on John Bedini's Website.  Tom Bearden advises that these devices will work only if they are built exactly as shown, with no deviations or "improvements."

The Kawai overunity magnetic motor can also be built directly from the Patent plans - see below
« Last Edit: 16/06/2009 21:20:51 by Vern »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #303 on: 16/06/2009 21:19:46 »
I'm actually on a forum - somewhere.  I just cant find it at the moment. If I do I'll get the link to you.  I'm not interested in the circuit.  I'm just interested to see if it's been replicated.

Thanks Vern.  Yet again.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #304 on: 16/06/2009 21:22:01 »
I edited the post to include the Tom Bearden list of over unity devices.


Edit: Here's an interesting anecdote from one of Bearden's links.
Quote from: the link
One of his motors exhibited a very unique phenomenon.  Frank developed the motor over a period of some five years.  Slowly its efficiency rose, until eventually it clearly produced COP>1.0. In fact it's measured COP was 1.67.

Then Frank moved several hundred miles away, and of course took his shop and motors with him. In the new location, imagine our total astonishment when Frank found that the same motor now produced COP<1.0!
« Last Edit: 16/06/2009 21:30:57 by Vern »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #305 on: 16/06/2009 21:33:08 »
It's no good.  I just can't find it.  Who is Bearden?  It sounds amazing.  Are these experiments generally accepted?  Presumably not.  But if he has the same problems I've had then I sympathise.

In fact I know something of this movement.  I was contacted by Peter Lindemann.  I believe he's giving me space on his website for my blog.  Somehow?  Whatever that means.  It's so kind of him.  In any event, whatever these guys know about overunity results - it certainly can't be mainstream.  Frankly I prefer mainstream.  It needs a kind of critical overview.  And I've yet to find someone who can discuss the theory to allow overunity.  Are there such?  I get these extraordinary explanations of 'aether' and zero point energy - and goodness knows what.  Nothing to get my teeth into.  Lacks logic and substance.  But I do admire the effort.

But you see Vern.  You must admit that if your reaction and - more to the point, Sophiecentaur's and jerrygg38's are all typical of all mainstream - then at its least it there's a certain want of objectivity.  The acid test - is the experimental evidence.  If this mindset is ever cracked - then I think there will be a revolution to science.  It's the want of testing that keeps science in 'the doldrums' as you described it in one of your posts.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #306 on: 16/06/2009 22:14:51 »
Quote from: witsend
It's no good.  I just can't find it.  Who is Bearden?  It sounds amazing.  Are these experiments generally accepted?  Presumably not.  But if he has the same problems I've had then I sympathise.
The name Tom Bearden is a link in the previous post and I'll edit this later to make this Tom Bearden a link. The link goes to Tom Bearden's web page where there is a list of fifteen or so over unity devices. No, they are not generally accepted. Most of us here can easily see the flaws in each. They are interesting because they highlight our frailties. They show how easily we can be fooled. When we notice the things that tripped up other people it helps us pay attention to things that might trap ourselves.
« Last Edit: 16/06/2009 22:17:59 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #307 on: 16/06/2009 23:00:17 »
I edited the post to include the Tom Bearden list of over unity devices.


Edit: Here's an interesting anecdote from one of Bearden's links.
Quote from: the link
One of his motors exhibited a very unique phenomenon.  Frank developed the motor over a period of some five years.  Slowly its efficiency rose, until eventually it clearly produced COP>1.0. In fact it's measured COP was 1.67.

Then Frank moved several hundred miles away, and of course took his shop and motors with him. In the new location, imagine our total astonishment when Frank found that the same motor now produced COP<1.0!

As I look at some of the inventors and their devices it looks like the ghost seonces (sic). In general they set up a rotating magnetic field outside the motor. You cannot see the field.
  It is the slight of hand, the shell game. It is just a magicians trick. Remember Moses put his stick down and it turned into a cobra in the Ten Commandments. The other magicians did the same thing. The Moses cobra ate the others. Big deal. It was hungry. The others were well fed.
  All jokes. All fun and games.

   It is great that the magicians can fool so many people and have so many talking coconuts. However when I was 17.5 years old I met the original talking coconut guy in Union Square Park.
  The people who argued with him were very smart. many had spend years in the park arguing all sorts of things.
  There were also people with the shell game on the street corners. The world is full of con men. some for fun. Some for money. You could get a stolen ten carrot diamond right for only $50. It only cost the con man around $3. However the minute he said he stole it, he was mobbed by buyers. So many people like that. There was a store nearby which sold all the stolen merchandize. The police could not arrest the store owner because he made the diamonds from glass himself. There is no law against selling fake stolen merchandise. At least years ago. Now it is false advertizing and the people could demand their money back.
  People would be selling fake stolen tv,s. That reminds me of an acquantance of mine. He was a good natured sport.
   Someone was struggling to bring down a 25 inch TV from the uppeer stairs of his apartment house. He helped the man with the set. A good natured slob. When he got to his apartment he found that his door was open and his tv was missing.
   Barum was right. There is a sucker born every minute.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #308 on: 17/06/2009 07:19:31 »
No, they are not generally accepted. Most of us here can easily see the flaws in each. They are interesting because they highlight our frailties. They show how easily we can be fooled. When we notice the things that tripped up other people it helps us pay attention to things that might trap ourselves. Vern

I've finally looked through the threads.  It's fascinating. 

If these guys are openly disclosing their circuits so that they can be replicated - and mainstream will not test this, then it strikes me that mainstream will eventually lose its moral authority.  This is positively a MOVEMENT - akin to a revolution of science by THE PEOPLE and for THE PEOPLE. 

However, by the same token - if they are not disclosing the full components in their apparatus and this entire movement is based on hoaxes and fraudulent misrepresentation - then mainstream really needs to check this out and DISPROVE IT before it gets out of hand.

Mainstream cannot have it both ways.  Either they are right or this new science is right.  Measured evidence the final arbiter?  Science has its own impeccable litmus test.  It requires replication and disproof. That's EASY especially for experts.

It is simply not enough to stick one's nose in the air - fingers in the ears, and close the eyes TIGHT.  That does not constitute an argument.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #309 on: 17/06/2009 11:42:00 »
Quote from: witsend
Mainstream cannot have it both ways.  Either they are right or this new science is right.  Measured evidence the final arbiter?  Science has its own impeccable litmus test.  It requires replication and disproof. That's EASY especially for experts.
I doubt that any scientist would feel an obligation to disprove claims like this. There are no tests that would convince the advocates that their pet devices do not work.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #310 on: 17/06/2009 12:08:13 »
Hi Vern.  I'm knee deep again.  But am dying to talk to you about this.  I'll catch up later.
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #311 on: 17/06/2009 14:47:48 »

. . . . . . .
But you see Vern.  You must admit that if your reaction and - more to the point, Sophiecentaur's and jerrygg38's are all typical of all mainstream - then at its least it there's a certain want of objectivity.  The acid test - is the experimental evidence.  If this mindset is ever cracked - then I think there will be a revolution to science.  It's the want of testing that keeps science in 'the doldrums' as you described it in one of your posts.
My ears were burning!
If it's objectivity you want, I can only ask you why this system hasn't been used as a free source of energy. Commercial interests rule and you cannot seriously believe that a CONSPIRACY is at work here, can you?
Just 'possibly' you may consider that what you have measured is, in fact, not an indication of what is really going on in your experiment.  You don't even seem to realise that your system would be a perpetual motion machine.  If it isn't, then it is of no interest to anyone - plenty of devices can produce more volts (or current) than is put in so you have to define what you mean, exactly, by "over unity". When challenged about that you put up a smokescreen of mis-used terminology in which Energy , Fields and other terms are not used in their conventional way. If you don't use a common language then you can't have a dialogue.

It strikes me that what you bugs you is that your ideas are being rejected by a lot of people (they seem to come to this forum, one by one, and leave in disbelief). One or two people have not seen anything wrong with your method, after what could well have been a polite but cursory look at the system.

You are deliberately avoiding facing the possibility of a fundamental error by refusing to get to grips with some real Science. It "doesn't make sense" is no justification because you have no authority to reject it if you don't understand it.

I will, once more, challenge you to show how valid you hypotheses are by successfully using them to predict the frequencies of the Hydrogen lines. If the numbers don't coincide with reality (or can't be produced) then  you haven't got it right. I think a bit more respect for the giants of the past might be in order.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #312 on: 17/06/2009 16:25:01 »
Sophiecentaur - with respect - you really DO NOT GET what it is that I am trying to do.  For some reason you seem to think that only experts can talk to experts.  I have, undeservedly no doubt - a whole range of EXPERTS that I write to and chat to about my physics and physics generally.  Only SOME of those scientist are too self-opinionated not to realise my talents.  Then I or they simply stop the discussion.  But you persistently belittle my contribution because my knowledge of science is NOT PRECISE. 

I am INTUITIVE.  That's all.  I have the ability to conceptualise things that are NOT mainstream.  I cannot wrap my mind around numbers.  But I have a flair for symmetry.  And at the deepest most fundamental level - physics is ALL about symmetry.  So.  I see things in patterns that you guys see with numbers. I'll tell you what I predict.  I predict that the actual description of the atom WILL eventually be described in patterns. It's the only thing that actually matches a full conceptual understanding.

So.  It is like asking a paraplegic to first play tennis before he can comment on the game.  Or it's like saying to an art crtic - how dare you evaluate my work when you can't yourself paint. Or it's like saying to a gardener - how can you garden unless you know all the botanical names of all the plants. Or to an audience at a concert - only those that know how to play an instrument can listen.  The rest of you go home.   And so the analogies can go - on and on and on. 

For some reason a whole bunch of you scientists expressly deny the right of any outsider to comment.  There is the immediate impression that 'you cannot possibly know what you're talking about.'  Very possibly, true.  But why not first find out?  Then comment.  I have read things in this blog by respectable scientists that defy any sensible conventional known classical or even quantum theory.  I see earnest discussion about phenomena that are actually entirely exempt from Vern's required 'final arbiter'.  I don't see anyone pointing out obvious errors.  I see an earnest attempt between two people or more to wrap their minds around each other's concepts.  It's just so charming.  It's sincere and honest and tolerant.  Why can that courtesy not be extended to me.  Because I'm not qualified?

So here's the thing.  I am pointing at a skeleton.  I need someone else to 'flesh it out'.  That's simply a statement of the case.  If you do not like my presentation of the fact - IT IS THE VERY VERY BEST THAT I CAN DO.  It does not deserve a full frontal, explosive parade of intolerant, judgemental, criticisms.  That is what both you and Jerrygg38 subject me to.  It is, at it's least, very uncivilsed and very ungentlemanly.

« Last Edit: 18/06/2009 07:10:12 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #313 on: 17/06/2009 17:14:31 »
And, Sophiecentaur - I'm aware of the fact that you want me off this forum.  It would be with some regret that I'd leave it.  But I certainly won't leave it to satisfy you or Jerrygg38.  I enjoy it too much.  I love writing.  And I love the 'meeting of the minds' so to speak.  Have never come across it before.  It is really an amazing medium.  But, like all communities, if such it is, it also includes some really spiteful people.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #314 on: 17/06/2009 18:55:15 »
I think, given sophiecentaur's record on this site to date, that it's pretty unlikely that he particularly wants you of the site.
 
On the other hand if you're going to make assertions about physics which is extremely well explained by current models, and then refuse to engage either with the current theory or with any quantitative details, and moreover expect to be taken seriously, then I'm afraid you're onto a loser.

You may, of course, be right. You may have discovered by.. I don't know.. tuning into the universe by your fabulous intuition, something that modern science has never discovered and is in some way the answer to all our problems. You may have discovered the key to a grand unified theory all by yourself. But if modern science took seriously everyone who thought that, without demanding of them that they explain how their theory fits in with pre-existing experimental results and how their experimental results cannot be explained by the careful application of current theory* then, frankly, no-one would ever get anything done. So it's down to you. Go away, do your homework, forget your new theory for a while, learn about what's already been found out and the conclusions thousands of minds have drawn from that over the years. Then, if you're still not satisfied that your results are explicable in conventional terms (and you haven't found any great holes in your own theory), try again pushing your theory. You might at least by then know what a capacitor is!!
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #315 on: 17/06/2009 19:09:31 »
Hi Rosey. Thanks for your advice.
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #316 on: 17/06/2009 19:25:28 »
And, Sophiecentaur - I'm aware of the fact that you want me off this forum.  It would be with some regret that I'd leave it.  But I certainly won't leave it to satisfy you or Jerrygg38.  I enjoy it too much.  I love writing.  And I love the 'meeting of the minds' so to speak.  Have never come across it before.  It is really an amazing medium.  But, like all communities, if such it is, it also includes some really spiteful people.
As a matter of fact, witsend, I would rather you were ON this forum and talking some sense! (As Rosy said.)
Is it "spiteful" to ask someone to put their money where their mouth is? Is it "spiteful" to ask someone to get themselves informed about the subject for which the Forum was set up? Science is not just a chit-chat subject, you know. It's a serious business and only advances through a serious attitude.

An emotional response is always easier than one with some 'meat' in it.
I love an informed discussion with people who have done their homework.

btw I am only on this thread again because you used my name in a post. Do the same rules apply to everyone or is it OK to dismiss me  as having a "mindset"?
Unlike you, I have made a point of justifying experimental results throughout my  career in research and backing them up with as much theory as I could get, either from  my knowledge or from others. If I had thrown a wobbler  every time someone told me I was wrong, I wouldn't have made it to first base.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #317 on: 17/06/2009 19:36:35 »
I have a question to ask of anyone who can answer.  When we measure the voltage across the resistor (in my experiment) the voltage is consistent with Ohm's Law.  By this, I meean that if the battery voltage is, say 12 volts, and the resistor is 10 Ohms, then the voltage measured across the resistor, during the On period of the duty cycle is 12/10 x time.  If there is energy stored on the resistor - which I don't doubt, but if this energy somehow 'cost' the battery extra energy, then where do I find this EXTRA energy?

Yet, the amount of energy that is dissipated during the Off period of the duty cycle - absolutely regardless of the length of the applied duty cycle, very nearly equalls the amount of energy that was applied during the On period.  It is, nonetheless some fraction less than the energy dissipated during the On period.

Then it is easily demonstrated that this returning energy actually recharges the battery.  If one connects a second battery to circuit and links this to the test experiment only with a common rail at the negative terminal of both batteries (sorry another edit) - and then puts the diode to the positive terminal of the second battery and then simply gauges the voltage level of the second battery - one will immediately see the voltage rise.

We therefore take the amount of energy delivered by the battery as the difference (sorry this is edited.  I originally said product) of both cycles, as the second Off cycle recharges the battery.  The On cycle does not.

As the second cycle (the Off period) invariably returns less energy to the battery than the amount delivered during the On period, then there will invariably be a loss to the battery.  This also means that it could NEVER be a closed system.

These measurements are repeatedly evident.  

 
« Last Edit: 17/06/2009 19:51:29 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #318 on: 17/06/2009 21:59:43 »
btw I am only on this thread again because you used my name in a post. Do the same rules apply to everyone or is it OK to dismiss me  as having a "mindset"?
Unlike you, I have made a point of justifying experimental results throughout my  career in research and backing them up with as much theory as I could get, either from  my knowledge or from others. If I had thrown a wobbler  every time someone told me I was wrong, I wouldn't have made it to first base.
Sophiecentaur

I've been trying to think how to answer this.  I think you've hit on the 'difference'.  Physics is your career and you probably think that I'm frivolous in my interest in it?  I'll never be able to understand the math that goes with it.  But I do have a reasonable grasp of its Laws.

When you say that you'd sooner have me on the forum provided I also 'talk sense' - it's as much as saying that - in truth I am always talking nonsense.  That's spiteful.

I've always thought of myself as being reasonable.  And I have a very real interest in the fundamentals of physics.  I sincerely believe that physics has overlooked the importance of the magnetic field.  I believe this could be a primary force and that it could also be the source of dark energy, dark matter, gravity, current flow, and on and on.  I am not qualified to promote this other than to describe my insights.  If it turns out that it's wrong - then it's wrong.  The only proof of concept is in a circuit that I cannot get to the academic forum for analysis. 

I've been reading those overunity forums.  Their contributors are either very young or their language skills aren't that good, or maybe I just don't understand them.  But they do seem to be sincere.  Here and there you get a contributor who is clearly qualified.  Most of them are talking about motors.  I've never studied motors - except as explained by Dyson.  So I can't comment - even on their experiments.  What I do know is that - if indeed they are finding 'over unity' which I believe is the inevitable result of a flyback circuit - then I can fully appreciate their quandary.  How does one get this to the attention of mainstream?

I know Vern has suggested that their findings are wrong - and that THEIR mindset is such that nothing will convince them otherwise.  But I would have thought that replication would disprove this - and very easily.  That's what I mean by a mindset.  If these guys are convinced that there is such a thing as free energy - and you guys are satisfied that there isn't - then of both camps I'd say yours would be the one to win hands down.  You've got the articulation and the ability to analyse the actual experimental data that - quite possibly - they haven't.  And if that exercise could be conducted in a sincere attempt to discover the cause of their confusion - then the exercise would benefit all concerned.

I personally do not believe in free energy.  On the contrary.  I believe that energy always comes at a price.  It's just that electric current flow need not be quite as expensive as classical studies seem to require.

But I also believe in empirical evidence.  As I've said - there may very well be some problem with the circuit analysis.  If there is it is beyond my abilities to find it.  And, it has proven to be difficult for those people mentioned in the paper.  We all want this put to the academics to evaluate.  Unfortunately it's my circuit.  So I have to write that ruddy paper.  But if someone else could check it out and then write that paper it'd be fine by me.  I'm not looking for fame and glory. I just want to know if it's right or wrong. 


Incidentally could you or Vern please answer the question in the previous post.  It's quite important really because it sort of goes to the whole point of this argument.  
« Last Edit: 17/06/2009 22:13:08 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #319 on: 17/06/2009 23:51:21 »
Quote
When we measure the voltage across the resistor (in my experiment) the voltage is consistent with Ohm's Law.
Do you mean the V is proportional to I at all times?
The only way to ascertain this would be to look at V and I waveforms, as they very in time, and see how they are related  over the whole cycle of the oscillation. One way to do it would be if the Oscilloscope has an X/Y plotting function (as when  you can display Lissajous figures). Only if the result is a straight, diagonal, line can you say that it "follows Ohm's law".
You have used the term "power factor" and, although it is not appropriate for a non-sinusoidal waveform, it can be used to explain why your battery would be expected to waste power because, at times, there will have been more current flowing than if the load were purely resistive - this current, flowing through the internal resistance of the battery, will dissipate (waste) more power in the battery.

Your statements on this topic only cover part of the story. The details of what the terms mean are crucial. Your experiment is based upon putting pulses of current through a resistor. There is no way you can get back any of the energy which has been dissipated resistively - except as heat. The impedance of the circuit is dominated by the resistive components and any reactive power involved is tiny. The reactance can, however, produce distortion of the boxcar pulses which can easily mess up measurements of voltage and current unless you can measure them continuously and at a rate which is much higher than any impulse response of your circuit.  The whole thing can be analysed  accurately and repeatably. If you included the particular measurement you used - in detail - the predicted measurements from the analysis would be the same as you got. But your measurements don't tell the whole story (as jg38 told you). If you cannot accept that and rely on your very limited experience of electronics then you will never get to the bottom of this.
I am not in a position to discuss this with the people who you think have given your experiment credibility - an I don't think they would be bothered to talk to me either. BUT you have to accept that, unless this 'anomaly' has been observed happening all over the place and in circuits of  all layouts by legions of professional electronics engineers then the overwhelming probability is that your  limited measurements of a limited set of configurations are most likely at fault.


Is there a more 'caring' way of telling someone what they have said is nonsense? The word "nonsense" need not be taken personally. If what you say doesn't make sense, how else can I point it out?

I read the words you use about not knowing a lot about Physics and they read like an honest statement but you then declare that you have a theory which explains everything and that mainstream Science has got it all wrong. How can all that make sense? Where do you think the tried and tested mainstream ideas came from? Do you think they came from some inspired amateur? It's like most things- 1% inspiration and  99% perspiration. You need a bit more perspiration before you can start to move Science forwards.

The existence of two opinions about a subject doesn't imply that both opinions are equally valid. There are websites devoted to all  manner of stuff which you, too, would regard as nonsense. The young and inarticulate are hardly the best people to use a sources on which to base an opinion of how the Universe works - sincerity counts for nothing if you happen to believe something which is demonstrably false.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #320 on: 18/06/2009 00:28:12 »
Dear Witsend
  The big problem you have is that you have Soph who knows his physics quite well.  Then you have Vern who is an EE who spent his career with Physicist. Two sharp guys. Then you have Jerry who has been doing EE stuff since age 15 in Brooklyn Tech HS. In fact I got the only 100 percent on the electrical comprehensive exam for NYC in 1956. There were many 98 but only one 100.
   In addition I never got less than an A in any math,physics,or engineering course.

  As far as I am concerned you have a theory of a twice light speed system. I cannot fault you for this theory. The big problem I have is you try to prove your theory by reference to this stupid circuit. Just because there are a million stupid idiots who profess that they have another stupid circuit which produces impossible results, the three of us do not believe it. So you are wasting you time trying to stand by stupidity. I like to be nice to everyone but you persist in this stupidity.

  There are only several sources of free energy. The atomic processes can give us free energy. The biggest source of free energy is the proton. Scientists are working on it. They are working on it with multi-million and billion dollar projects. Sanford is doing something right now with high energy lazers which hopefully will work.

  Some stupid little circuit or some stupid little motor is not the hope of mankind. You are hoping to charge up a little 9 volt battery by some miracle circuit.

  Do some thinking about how to reap the energy from the proton. That is what I am studying but the experimental physicists are in much better shape to do that job. The reason is that as they experiment they see different things. This gives some of them new ideas and before long they find away to harness the proton.

  If you are interested in continuing the circuit  discussion, why don't you go onto the groups that specialize in that discussion. No one here believes your circuit idea.

   And I know how you feel. You invented a variation of something. At least from your perspective you invented it although as I mentioned before that circuit is standard stuff. So you patent is meaningless. No one would dispute it because no one cares. The chip makers have books of applications of their chips. Therefore variations of that circuit are all over the place.

  If you are so good in theory then study some math. Take a college physics course. Then you can discuss your ideas with the instructor and fellow students.

  The world is looking for a machine which can produce huge amounts of electricity directly from the atomic proceses. Your circuit deals with a few watts. We want billions of watts.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #321 on: 18/06/2009 09:37:26 »
Sophiecentaur, at last a response that is measured, constrained and reasonable.  It at least deserves my full attention.

I must apologise for not using the system's quote method.  I finally got the hang of it but have difficulty with the script size.  So If it's clumsy it's value to me is that I can more easily read it to reference it.

Do you mean the V is proportional to I at all times?

I'm not sure.  This question would be better answered by my co-author.  But I'll try and explain what I mean.  The start of each cycle waveform begins at zero, rises to peak in a relatively straight line - curves slightly at it's peak, levels for the duration of that cycle and then collapses back to zero when the current flow is interrupted by the switch.  In effect it looks like a 90 degrees - vertical rise of a mountain with slightly erroded edges at both sides of its peak plateau.

That rise relates to an analysis of wattage dissipated that PERFECTLY relates to the potential difference from the battery divided by the Ohm's value of the resistor times time.  This waveform and an analysis of the wattage dissipated has been measured using my own Fluke 123 oscilloscope but has also been checked with realy excellent Tektronix (spelling? - nor sure if this is right) equipment.  The latter allows for 10 000 independent measurement on each waveform.  It's accuracy is about as good as R250 000.00 of measuring equipment can buy.

In other words it proves that the rate of current flow during the On period of the switching cycle is determined by Ohm's Law.  So to my way of thinking the energy that was delivered by the battery during this ON period is measured as the product of the battry's applied voltage / R x time.  Those numbers are unambiguous.  And they have the dubious merit of exactly conforming to classical prediction.
 
The only way to ascertain this would be to look at V and I waveforms, as they very in time, and see how they are related  over the whole cycle of the oscillation. One way to do it would be if the Oscilloscope has an X/Y plotting function (as when  you can display Lissajous figures). Only if the result is a straight, diagonal, line can you say that it "follows Ohm's law".

I'm not entirely sure that I've understood this question.  I have NEVER seen a straight diagonal line votage waveform in any of my experiments.  But what I have seen is that if I apply this resistor parallel to a battery - no switching circuit - then the dissipated wattage from that resistor is a is the product of battery voltage over the Ohm's value of the resistor.  In other words the rate of current flow is determined by the resistor.  And that voltage is seen as a straight line that runs above but parallel to zero.
 
You have used the term "power factor" and, although it is not appropriate for a non-sinusoidal waveform, it can be used to explain why your battery would be expected to waste power because, at times, there will have been more current flowing than if the load were purely resistive - this current, flowing through the internal resistance of the battery, will dissipate (waste) more power in the battery.

That is my question.  Where do I find this 'wasteage'?  It is not apparent in the waveform that is described. (The mountain analogy).  If it is there, then it is not apparent notwithstanding the use of some really, really fast measuring equipment.  If I could find this voltage then I'd be able to better understand classical argument.
 
Your statements on this topic only cover part of the story. The details of what the terms mean are crucial. Your experiment is based upon putting pulses of current through a resistor. There is no way you can get back any of the energy which has been dissipated resistively - except as heat. The impedance of the circuit is dominated by the resistive components and any reactive power involved is tiny.

I agree that we cannot get back any of the energy that has been dissipated resistively. It is just that my own suggestion is that this dissipated energy comes from the material of the resistor itself.   By reactive power I assume you mean the magnetic field that is induced across the resistor as a result of the flow of current - in terms of Induction Laws.  I don't want to go into my explanation here unless you require it.  I actually want to understand why there is some limit to this 'reactive power' that somehow defeats inductive laws.  Please, could you answer this as simply as possible. 

The reactance can, however, produce distortion of the boxcar pulses which can easily mess up measurements of voltage and current unless you can measure them continuously and at a rate which is much higher than any impulse response of your circuit.

I had to look up 'boxcar' and found a reasonably understandable abstract in a paper by Becker & Hicki.  I'm quoting from that paper.

"In all modes the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the result can be enhanced by repeatedly sampling each signal point and averaging the samples" 

They then go on to describe some pretty exotic equipment with measuring capabilities that, I am sure, exceed those that we used.  But, as I understand it, this relates to the 'noise' that seems to come with each application of this circuit device.  I know that there's this output because my son has a radio in his workshop.  When it's on we only get some really gross interference.  There is an academic who assisted me in the presentation of that paper.  I understood that his objection to the experiment was based on the fact that voltage and current were not measured continuously.  I thought he needed us to analyse the experiment - linked to a system that could measure each and every waveform over the entire period of the test.  I now see that he was, probably, trying to point out that the measurements are only reliable if they also analyse this noise.   

I take your point.  This is valid.  However, we measured the amount of energy dissipated as it related to its temperature rise.  This should have obviated any argument related to the amount of wattage dissipated.  I know you've read that paper.  The batteries had no significant voltage drop over that entire test period.

And I agree that the better test would have been to include a control with comparative draw down rates of the same wattage dissipated without the benefit of the circuit apparatus.  We have done that test - ad nauseum - and the control batteries deplete their energy at a rate consistent with their rated capacities.  The test apparatus exceeds its watt hour rating.  It apperears to deliver energy at a rate consistent with the current flow as measured as the sum of the above and below zero voltage measurements measured across the shunt aand as we descibe it in the paper.

I WAS SPECIFICALLY DENIED any right to include that comparison in the paper as I was advised that it was not a valid comparison.  However, I redid the test for my co-author and the control battery is entirly FLAT at the end of that test period.  That, in fact, is why we restricted the TIME in the test to exactly that point when the control batteries could no longer deliver energy.  On the initial presentation of the test to QUANTUM I was advised that any comparison to battery draw down rate was erroneous as battery vagaries were such that results could not be used as proof of anything.

I am not in a position to discuss this with the people who you think have given your experiment credibility - and I don't think they would be bothered to talk to me either. BUT you have to accept that, unless this 'anomaly' has been observed happening all over the place and in circuits of  all layouts by legions of professional electronics engineers then the overwhelming probability is that your  limited measurements of a limited set of configurations are most likely at fault.

I cannot argue this.  I do not know why this benefit has not been seen.  Nor do I understand why boffins will not at least look.  I suggest that it should and can only be finally determined by a wide range of academics who really cannot put their name to this exercise.  They WILL be marginalised together with myself, and indeed all those overunity eccentrics.  It needs to be published - the question put out there - and then answered by the boffins.  And until it's published it seems that no-one can take the question seriously. Unless you know another way of getting the question to the academic forum?  I think I've exhausted all possible roads.  They all lead to that required publication.  I am not equal to the task and it's not from want of trying. I would give my right arm to get someone qualified to tackle that paper.  That's why I keep plugging at this.  It's like a tongue moving to a sore tooth.  I just cannot give it up without clarity on these phenomena.

I'll answer the rest of your post separately, if you don't mind.  Else this post will be way too long. 
« Last Edit: 18/06/2009 09:42:09 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #322 on: 18/06/2009 10:15:28 »
Sophiecentaur. It is offensive to told that one is talking nonsense when one is only trying to find answers.  If the question is nonsense I need to understand why.  That's surely fair.  If I can get my mind around the answers then I will, in all probability, agree with you.

I know about physics conceptually only.  For example,I know the force and effect of gravity as it is expalined by conventional science.  But NOWHERE is there an acceptable explanation of what it is.  Only what it does.  Both classical and quantum physics have measured and used ALL THE FORCES but none of them are able to explain ENERGY itself.  That was what I've tried to do.  And I've done it by proposing that a magnetic field may be a primary force.  If I ever made a proposal that does not conform to measured reality - the final arbiter - then your criticism of my involvement would be valid.  In ALL cases my explanations fit in with classical measured phenomena.  The difference is that I've identified an alternate source to energy that, thus far, I have not seen considered by conventional science. 

With respect, it really does not matter where an idea came from or who came to it or how.  It's the idea that needs consideration.  I would gladly withdraw from any such discussion if I did not think that the idea may be valid.  That I'm party to this discussion is an unfortunate coincidence.  It would, indeed, be better argued by qualified minds.  But having said that, I'm getting tired of the need to address my lack of qualification.  I have worked on these concepts over a period of 10 years.  My methods are not orthodox.  But, the more I use them the more I see that they are valid.  I do have an understanding of physics.  It is promoted by constant reading, constant questioning and experimental evidence. I have put in my 99% - but that does not make me a genius.  Only a really curious investigator of physical phenomena - using my God given curiosity and my limited intellect.  Rosey's rference to my 'intuition' is right - albeit intended as an insult.  It is, I believe, strong.  But it may be faulted.  There is no way this argument can be considered if you simply object to my proposals on the basis that I happened to propose it.  Look to the proposal to find fault.

And the existence of two opinions does not imply that both opinions are equally valid.  I agree with you.  But it may be that both opinions are invalid.  I cannot comment on the contributors to that 'free energy' forum.  Personally, as I've said - I do not subscribe to free energy.  But, if something is 'demonstrably false' then surely the final proof would be in the demonstration and not in its discussion.

And the fact that millions have tested and know of this circuit but none have seen a benefit.  I cannot explain this.  Perhaps this new science is, in fact, exposing this benefit.  I don't know the answer.  But I do know that if mainstream science does not address this well-spring of alternate energy claims then mainstream science will lose its moral authority.  That really matters.  While I'm happy to confront mainstream on certain conceptual issues, I would prefer it that they comment as their caliber is unquestionable.  I am not sure of the caliber of the free energy adherents.

« Last Edit: 18/06/2009 10:31:11 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #323 on: 18/06/2009 10:39:29 »
Quote
Do you mean the V is proportional to I at all times?

I'm not sure.  This question would be better answered by my co-author.  But I'll try and explain what I mean.  The start of each cycle waveform begins at zero, rises to peak in a relatively straight line - curves slightly at it's peak, levels for the duration of that cycle and then collapses back to zero when the current flow is interrupted by the switch.  In effect it looks like a 90 degrees - vertical rise of a mountain with slightly erroded edges at both sides of its peak plateau.
This response shows the problem you and the rest of us are having with your work. You seem just not to know what you have done or what you have seen. You are trying to have a dialogue with a number of people (it is no longer just me) who use a tried and tested language for discussing these phenomena. Until you can make sense of my replies and questions, there is no point in carrying on.
You claim that something "obeys Ohm's Law" but you don't recognise Ohm's Law when it is presented to you. Ohm's Law says that, in a metal at constant temperature, the current is directly proportional to the applied voltage. It is less of a law and more of a description of behaviour (as with most Science laws). Directly proportional means a straight line graph which passes through the origin.
It is possible to display this on many oscilloscopes - instead of plotting the input voltages against time (the normal display mode) you can move the spot on the X and Y axes with the input signals and see the relationship between V and I. This is a cheap and cheerful way of ascertaining whether or not you have a pure resistor. Your description (what's wrong with a sketch btw) indicates that what you saw was what I'd expect. BUT - no values are given  for anything, so it is very hard to tell.

You say that you are getting tired of the need to address your lack of qualification. That lack of knowledge and practical experience can't be used as an excuse for the fact that you haven't understood either what you have seen or why it has happened.
Would you embark on a life as an Olympic swimmer if you hadn't yet learned to swim?
This "benefit" which you claim to have seen from your circuit is just not there. You measured it all wrong and you got a wrong answer - yet you are too arrogant (that's the  only word for it) to look in that direction. Instead, you claim we are all wrong and that you are right. You will only be listened to, seriously, when you show some rigour in your work. You have wasted ten years on this when you could have spent nine years learning some Science and another year doing something useful.
Do you just post this stuff so that you will get exasperated responses?  Isn't that called Trolling?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #324 on: 18/06/2009 10:50:20 »
Definition of trolling    
   
Being a ***** on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence."
Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence."


I've just googled the term trolling.  My guess is that I'm the Guy and you're the other?  I just don't know? 

I am sorry that you think I am arrogant.  Perhaps it is arrogance to confront science.  In any event, thank you for applying your mind to this question.  I see that we will never get to a resolution because my knowledge of your language is somewhat bereft. 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #324 on: 18/06/2009 10:50:20 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums