The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: a circuit that produces overunity results.  (Read 98945 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #350 on: 10/12/2009 20:04:53 »
Why make the fuss about a true RMS reading meter if you are just using it to measure a battery voltage?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #351 on: 11/12/2009 03:33:25 »
Hi Bored chemist.  What fuss?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #352 on: 13/12/2009 08:29:45 »
Hi guys, Because this is apposite am psoting this same draft report to this thread.


TECHNOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

It is impossible to determine the actual properties of electric current flow.  Some experts attribute this to the flow of electrons that move against each other in a kind of cascading domino reaction.  Yet others simply refer to the flow of ‘charge’.  But neither school has been able to categorically state what ‘moves’ and electric current is invisible in normal circuit conditions.  Science is a field that deals in precise measurements.  And, while the properties of a current may not be known, it’s effects are measurable.  So, light a light and we can measure both the light intensity and the amount of energy delivered to generate that light intensity.  In broad terms this is known as an energy equivalence.  And in terms of this example – it means that if you have delivered 100 watts of energy – then you cannot, under any circumstances, get more than 100 watts of ‘brightness’ from that light.  This equivalence is generally referred to as ‘unity’ and the mathematical understanding is that unity cannot be exceeded.

This ‘equivalence’ is required and defined in the Laws of Thermodynamics.  These have been modified through the centuries since Newton first proposed them – but the single theme that dominates all interpretations is that you can never get back more than you put in.  Under no circumstances can you get a brighter brightness in any lamp – than the units of energy delivered to light that lamp.  No element on any stove can give off more heat than the amount of energy delivered to generate that heat.  And so it goes. 

So how then does one explain a circuit where a battery supply source barely loses its energy while it cooks a load resistor or an element that is placed in series with that supply?  This, in effect is what was claimed in a widely accredited experiment published in Quantum Magazine in October 2002.  And this is also what has now been replicated by Glen Lettenmaier in 2009 – the details of which experiment are available on Scribd – an internet publication for open source contributors.  It is also widely replicated by numerous experimenters and posted throughout the internet.  In effect, these experimentalists are proving, demonstrably and repeatably, that it is possible to deliver a great deal more energy than was ever first supplied.  That light can shine at least four times brighter.  That stove can get four times hotter – than the energy that was applied to light the light – heat the stove.  In effect there may be a requirement to include a new particle into  Thermodynamic Laws.  And this evidence  is spreading like a heat rash across the globe.    All those academics trained by each other throughout all those centuries –  appear to have simply got it wrong.

But that is only true if the measurements stand up to scrutiny.  Fortunately Tektronix availed some of these experimentalists with the use of really sophisticated measuring equipment.  As mentioned by contributors to the energetic forum blog on alternate energy, ‘argue these numbers and you must take up your quarrel with God’.  To add to the required measurements’ proof and proficiency, photographs were taken of the equipment – films were made concurrently and careful attention was paid to all possible sources of ‘distortion’ of measurement.  These factors were systematically eliminated in a series of 13 tests – culminating with empirical and absolute proof of concept.  Indeed it is possible to exceed the constraints determined by our learned and revered.  In fact there seems to be some real potential to access this energy with a zero loss of energy to the supply source.

Open source has now done what open source does best.  It first argued the evidence in a series of postings on two dominating blogs including overunity.com and energeticforum.com.  Then it prepared a paper for review and has now submitted this to the IEEE – the world’s leading professional association for the advancement of technology.  It has again taken the evidence to the experts to judge it for themselves.  And all this brings the 2002 publication to full circle.  And where that first publication was ignored by our academia – a second was rejected out of hand, a third was rejected after review, the hope now is that this last application will be more seriously considered for publication.  But there is a persistent concern that the publication will yet again be refused on the grounds of  its apparent contradiction of the almost ‘holy’ laws of  Thermodynamics. 

So it is that, for the first time, Open Source are also looking to the media to make the knowledge of the invention available to the public and to engage the public in that review process.  This is not intended to antagonise the reviewers but is proposed as a means whereby our academics can be reminded of the need for accountability.  A refusal to accept a paper based on ‘improbability’ is not a valid basis of rejection.    This time, perhaps the public themselves can require our academics to explain where these experimentalists have got it wrong –  or if they’ve got it wrong.  Frankly Open Source have lost confidence in the impartiality of academics when considering experiments that also breach Thermodynamic Laws.  The argument proposed by academics themselves is that science is only ever progressed on experimental evidence.  Therefore is it required that the paper detailing these experiments be properly evaluated and that the public be fully advised of these findings. 

The actual question is how does this circuit breach these barriers?  It was configured deliberately and predicted to crash through those unity barriers.  But how?  Here an unlikely series of events were brought into play that led RA to the conclusion that circuits could be configured to deliver far greater efficiency than classically proposed.  RA read Garry Zukov’s book ‘The Dancing Wu Li Masters.  She was fascinated by the subject but had never been trained in physics and, more to the point was also not trained in math.  Some physicists are on record as saying that God Himself is a mathematician.  But the actual requirement in a study of physics is not only the math but the symmetries that are a kind of short cut to a description of particles and particle interactions.  And through a series of patterns RA was able to establish a reasonable approximation of the actual properties of stable particles.  These patterns were then more fully developed into a magnetic field model that concluded, broadly, that all matter was made up of composites of a single fundamental bipolar particle that she proposed could be called a zipon.

Of interest is that, in a field, these particles are seen to be a kind of controlling force – fundamental to all the forces, that then organise matter into four distinct divisions each measured as a gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear force.  Also in terms of that model this particle’s universal pervasiveness is closely akin to dark matter that is seen to bind our galaxies.  In this same way it also binds amalgams of matter to create our visible planet.   In essence, the atoms that are bound into identifiable objects are actually bound by these invisible fields of particles.  The fields are plastic in nature and can move through space, and in time.  And they do this.   They organise themselves around matter in any way required to promote their intrinsic need to find a balance, or a condition of net zero charge. 

As these concepts relate to the transfer of electric energy, the model required a slight departure from conventional understanding of current flow.   She proposed that current flow comprises the movement of these magnetic fields as strings through closed circuits.  When a source was not able to find a state of balance then that imbalance is measured as potential difference.  In other words, a measurable voltage imbalance was the measure of the imbalance in the fields of zipons.   And this potential difference could be diminished if those zipons could also find a path through an electric circuit which would then alter their spin and reduce that source imbalance.  The flow of those strings of zipons comprises electric current flow.  But the zipons that come from that source will also return to that source, subject to the availability of a path through the circuitry.

And when they flow, or while they forge this path through electric circuitry, they also induce a corresponding imbalance in the inductive components of that circuit.   This is widely known.  It is seen as ‘stored’ energy.   But the difference to convention and this model is subtle.  This stored energy establishes an imbalance in the circuit material – in that resistor or that element.  Being imbalanced these fields also require an established state of balance.  And given a chance to re-establish this balance, a chance to reduce this experienced and measurable potential difference, then they, in turn induce a second flow of current, in anti-phase to the first flow of current.  So, provided that there is a path available in the circuit, it too can return its extruded fields back to it’s own supply source being the resistor or the element itself.  In other words there are two sources of energy in every one cycle of current flow through a closed circuit.  The one is induced from the supply source, the other is induced from the resistor in series with that supply.  Both have independent supply or energy sources and both are able to reduce their potential difference provided that some circuit path is made available to do this.

The availability of the path is in the circuit design itself.  Here the source battery induces the first current path cycle, clockwise.  Then that flow is interrupted by opening the switch and ‘taking away’ the required closed path.  But simultaneously there is a new path opened for the second cycle where the resistor transfers its energy onto a second path - anticlockwise.   At speed, or at fast frequencies, the two cycles are able to resonate against each other, like a swing that is first pushed in one direction and then in the other.  And the net result is that the energy that is applied from the source is then returned to the source.  The energy that is applied from the circuit is returned to the circuit.  But in both cases that energy is simply strings of zipons that are trying to get back to their respective sources in order to diminish their experienced imbalance or their measured potential differences.  So under these special circuit conditions there is not only a conservation of energy, being the zipons themselves which return to their respective sources, but there is also a conservation of charge in the supply which is then continually recharged during the second cycle of the switched circuit.

But what then explains the ‘heat’ that is measured to be dissipated at the source. Here, again in line with observation but possibly not in line with classical thought, it is proposed that the zipons that are not extruded from the material of the circuit components, remain in the material, in the inductive wire itself.  But the essential symmetry of their fields has been broken through the extrusion of some of its fields.  This break results in a state of chaos that excites these fields into a cascade of zipons that recongregate within that material – in their attempt to regain that state of balance. 

It is further proposed that the size of the zipons relates to its velocity.  In a field they are cold and fast and small and entirely undetectable.  But break those symmetries, and in a precise and inverse proportionate ratio the zipons become hot and slow and manifest.  This, in turn results in some of those zipons decaying into photons and then radiating away from the resistive material itself.  This results in the systematic degradation of the bound state of the resistor which is seen as material fatigue. 


« Last Edit: 13/12/2009 09:01:57 by witsend »
 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #353 on: 13/12/2009 12:39:52 »
This, in turn results in some of those zipons decaying into photons and then radiating away from the resistive material itself.  This results in the systematic degradation of the bound state of the resistor which is seen as material fatigue


Your resistor fails?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #354 on: 13/12/2009 14:06:09 »
Hi nixietube

Yes the resistor fails. But you get the point?  I'm proposing that the conductive useable electric energy is not in the atoms but in the bound state of the atoms or molecules in an amalgam.  Those atoms are substantially unchanged.  Just the bound state gets altered.  Enough imbalance, enough strength in induced current flow and the bound condition can actually entirely decay.  Then the resistor fails. 

It can possibly be imagined as a 'fire' in resistor itself.  The model acually suggets that flames - let us say on your average wood fire - are also the result of these zipons.  Symmetries broken by applied friction and the manifest flame is simply zipons that lose their 'field symmetry' and congregate into a slow hot massive state from their previous cold fast small and invisible state.  Then they peel off.  Some combine carbon atoms with oxygen.  Others peel off as photons.  Others decay back into the background field - which on our planet is the Earth's magnetic fields.  What's changed is the bound state of the burnt wood. We're left with carbon ash in it's least energised form.  So conversely the proposal is that bound amalgams are energised to the extent of their binding.  That's where the energy is accessed in electric energy.   

It conforms to observation.  The source is just redefined. In any event - that's my take.  And experimental evidence seems to - at its least - suggest that there's an alternate source of energy on that average electric circuit.  I'm proposing that it's the glue that holds that material together.  And that glue is fields of zipons.

 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #355 on: 13/12/2009 16:12:57 »

So to sum up ...


1) You strongly believe that your circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources.
2) You and many others have spent years on this and have not been able to harness the energy for useful work.


Are those statements correct?


I see plenty of supposition for (1)
I see nothing for (2)

 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #356 on: 13/12/2009 18:04:30 »
Hi again, nixietube.

Definitely tapping into a 'heretofore' unidentified energy source.

Have spent many years trying to get academic accreditation.  Have also experimented on more significant wattages using utiltiy supply sources through bridge rectifiers.  But have never developed it for my own home uses as it's beyond my competence.  Have only just got replication now evident by experimentalists in Canada - Oregon USA - and Spain.  The USA experimentalist is developing it with private funding for commercial use - as we speak.  I believe the other two are also looking to commercialise.  Research funding required for instutional studies will only probably be available when and if our paper gets reviewed and published.  Until then there is not likely to be serious mainstream involvement unless, possibly, if the media bring this technology to our public's attention.

When and if this paper gets reviewed there will be the distinct possibility that the technology will get the required research funding.  Until this is published all applications run the danger of being considered fraudulent and there are real litigation risks in the offing. This would certainly prevent public funding - which is required to get the research completed for the technology to get it to a an expoitable condition.  That is the real difficulty that is being experienced.

My own interest in this technology is theoretical.  I think the proposed circuit is a good means to expose the energy potential - but the model itsef points to far more efficient means of harnessing this energy potential.
 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #357 on: 13/12/2009 18:31:58 »
Can you tell me how you arrived at the circuit to test your model?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #358 on: 13/12/2009 19:12:47 »
It's convoluted - but I wanted to prove that current flow comprised magnetic fields - strings of zipons - and that they were the material that bound matter.  The circuit was intended to show that field existed and that it had its own inherent energy qotient related to the bound state of that material.  It only needed conductive material to enable that second cycle of current flow.  Actually it seemed patently obvious to me.  What is evident in the waveforms is a possible breach of Kirchhoff's Laws or some accordance with meshed currents.  Either way there appears to be some anomalous events that point to different values of current on the source and drain rail that may deserve closer analysis.  If you really are interested you may want to check out energetic forum on renewable energies.  There's a thread there that details the experimentalists' findings and some detailed waveforms that may also be of interest. 
 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #359 on: 13/12/2009 22:46:19 »
  If you really are interested you may want to check out energetic forum on renewable energies.  There's a thread there that details the experimentalists' findings and some detailed waveforms that may also be of interest. 

To believe unknown/undefined energy sources do not exist is arrogant. Just as it is arrogant to assume one is correct in a (questionable) position.

To run my colours up the mast here, at this point I have only a passing interest in your ideas. The challenge, if I can call it that, is to identify your error(s) and get you to accept them. Sadly I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important.

Spend more time on (2) in my earlier post, and a little less time on the new theory. Start again, this time assuming all your prior work is flawed. Question everything. If you still arrive at the same conclusions, then cut down on the supposition, educate yourself, and approach people for help with the question.. "What is going on here?" followed by: " I do not understand what is going on in my circuit. "

 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #360 on: 13/12/2009 22:49:11 »
Look at this amazing free energy device:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/03/intel_power_plucking/

Do you see my point?


I also recall hearing about some chaps who wound some large coils in their loft to steal power, not far from a tv transmitter. They were only discovered after investigators were called in to investigate complaints of poor reception. I cant find the link to this, and it was many years ago.
« Last Edit: 13/12/2009 22:55:36 by nixietube »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #361 on: 14/12/2009 03:05:22 »
nixietube - hello again.

There are no self-respecting physicists alive today who do not subscribe to dark energy and dark matter.  This is - nonetheless - considered to be a new energy source from a yet to be identified particle.  it is known to comprise 96% of the known universe - is detectable through gravitational lensing - it is cold - entirely invisible to light and  it responds to gravity.  Its distribution is throughout the universe but is clustered at galaxies and is considered to be the 'missing mass' required to explain why our galaxies don't unravel.  Notwithstanding which the most informed of electrical engineer that I know - seldom realise the significance of this.  It is a newly identified energy source that has not been fully explained.  And its particle does not conform to standard models.  And it is thought to contribute 10 times more mass to a galaxy than is evident in its light. 

Now to tackle your post.  That you find it arrogant to deny new energy sources, or that it find it arrogant to assume to have found new energy sources, either way - is fatuously irrelevant.  Where did arrogance come into the equation with the discovery of dark matter?  Or lack of arrogance, or excessive pride, or humility, or shock or horror at the presumptions, at these prescriptive requirements?  Why is the emotion relevant?  The question is not whether I see your point but do you see mine?  When has science required this ridiculous dance - this skirting of the truth in order to protect the fragile egos of its members.  What absurdities you propose.  We must now first come to you - nixietube - and ask you to please explain a measurable event - lest we antagonise or affront those strange sensibilities that detect the abence or presence of pride and arrogance.  We must not point out that it was required and predicted in terms of a prior field model, but rather allow you - nixietube to assess the evidence. 

Tell me who here is being arrogant?  That you require this diplomatic denial of the facts speaks volumes to the mindset that I am determined to confront.  I will not ask 'what is going on here?'  Why should I?  I know.  Nor will I say 'I do not understand what is going on in my circuit' because it would be a lie designed to pander to your ego and not to the truth. Science has NOTHING to do with diplomacy - and it has everything to do with the truth.

And you come to this argument 10 years after it was first launched.  Because you're a late comer I must now defer all further analysis and evidence while you familiarise yourself with the details of that argument? And this to give you opportunity to confirm your unscientific assessment that 'sadly' you do not believe that we have discovered an over unity / free enegy device'.  As I have neither claimed this nor see it, I agree with the latter.  I deny the former and the evidence is in my favour.

And I might add - whether you are sad or happy is immaterial.  And what science has ever been based on 'belief'.  The two terms are mutually exclusive.  You are very free with your advice.  I suggest you keep it to yourself unless you can make it relevant.   
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 03:32:12 by witsend »
 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #362 on: 14/12/2009 13:04:29 »
The time of my arrival is irrelevant, as your frothy posts are.

The fact you are no further down the line from the time you started - 10 years ago - speaks volumes. I urge you and any other readers contemplating this endeavour to strip out the supposition, rhetoric and examine the naked truth.


i) You propose a theory. ("   theory:  a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." )

ii) You present a circuit, but are unable to explain how you arrived at the design -or- it's function.

iii) You strongly believe that your circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources - ( the ones you make up (i) )

iv) You and many others have spent years on this and have not been able to harness the energy for useful work.


You stand steadfast, unable to EVEN CONTEMPLATE the possibility YOU MAY BE WRONG. That is arrogance of the highest order, and has no place anywhere.

Disregard my posts, just as I'll have no care how you spend your time. I'll say it again, sadly I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device / energy tap, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important. I believe your theory is conjecture, your circut pointless and your methodology flawed.  I think you have been wasting your time, just as I have been in responding to your delusion.


There is no conspiracy of silence. You have failed to attract mainstream research because you have demonstrated nonsense. In my opinion.


The bold words are for you to read a couple times before you hurry to dispatch another post. Look up the meaning of the following words: believe, think, arrogance, pride,  paranoid delusion.


« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 13:20:21 by nixietube »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #363 on: 14/12/2009 15:01:10 »
Benv - I am hoping this post will grab your attention.  I want to point out that this forum thread invites the public to 'post their theories'.  Any such attempt should be protected by courtesy and comments should be as critical as required but constructive.  I put it to you that the thin readership here is possibly due to the fact that readers really don't want to be depressed by constant criticism.  And I would remind you that I have been hounded out of this forum before - precisely because there was no restriction placed on the comments of the contributors.  If I am to be subjected to the following comments to protect my good name then I will, again, leave this forum. And I see no difference in the tenor of the contributors here than was evident earlier this year.  If there is to be a serious discussion on new theories and new ideas and new facts, then can you try and 'tame' the aggressions such as are apparent here under.  nixietube is a newcomer and has taken over the attitude and aggressions that were previously flaunted by Sophiecentaur.

I am obliged to answer these posts because it is my good name that is at question.  This is an unfortunate consequence of having a thesis that is in the public domain.  I would expect monitors to rally and keep our names outside of actionable libel suits.  nixietube is flirting with that potential.

In answer to nixietube.

My posts are not frothy.  And your arrival is relevant.  You would, under all circumstances - be expected to familiarise yourself with the thesis before you launch into your dismissive and patronsing advices regarding the proposals.

I have NEVER PROPOSED A THEORY.  LOOK HARD.  LOOK EVERYWHERE.  NO THEORIES ON OFFER.

I am entirely able to explain how I arrived at the design and its function.

I do not believe that my circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources.  Belief does not come into the question when the facts speak for themselves.

I did not 'make them up'.  Indeed I would love to claim such.  But there you go.  I am not responsible for the knowledge and facts that relate to dark energy and dark matter.

Indeed we have harnessed this energy for useful work.  What do you think the prototype proof of concept shows and the configurations in the applied patent show?  Are you saying that I am lying? 

I do stand steadfast - but in the face of ever more evidence in wider and wider replications of the effect.  Would you prefer it that I and all replicators ignore the experimental evidence in favour of your bigotted denial?

Your emotional state regarding your belief's is neither scientific nor relevant.  I am entirely uninterested in whether you are sad or happy or whether you beleive or don't.  I am only interested in the science.

I have never claimed a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.  I have argued with the right of editors to reject a submission without first going to review.

I have no intention of re-reading your posts.  Your time would be better spent in reading my answers and familiarising yourself with the paper, the claim and the model.

 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #364 on: 14/12/2009 17:42:25 »
Benv - I am hoping this post will grab your attention.  I want to point out that this forum thread invites the public to 'post their theories'.  Any such attempt should be protected

I have NEVER PROPOSED A THEORY.  LOOK HARD.  LOOK EVERYWHERE.  NO THEORIES ON OFFER.



Contradicting yourself in the same post.  [:0]






I am entirely able to explain how I arrived at the design and its function.




Apparently "it is convoluted", your words - not mine,  and as of yet no logical explanation is forthcoming.



I do not believe that my circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources.  Belief does not come into the question when the facts speak for themselves.

I did not 'make them up'.  Indeed I would love to claim such.  But there you go.  I am not responsible for the knowledge and facts that relate to dark energy and dark matter.


Contradiction. See this post:

Hi again, nixietube.

Definitely tapping into a 'heretofore' unidentified energy source.






Indeed we have harnessed this energy for useful work.  What do you think the prototype proof of concept shows and the configurations in the applied patent show?  Are you saying that I am lying? 


You have clearly stated the current development stage is experimental. In simple terms, either it works, or it does not. You said in another post the resistor fails. Experimental machines that fail, to place 'useful work' into context, are about ase useful as a chocolate teapot.






I do stand steadfast - but in the face of ever more evidence in wider and wider replications of the effect.  Would you prefer it that I and all replicators ignore the experimental evidence in favour of your bigotted denial?

Your emotional state regarding your belief's is neither scientific nor relevant.  I am entirely uninterested in whether you are sad or happy or whether you beleive or don't.  I am only interested in the science.



Here you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the English language. Yes I am sad you have not discovered the means to harness some amazing energy source. I for one don't fancy the idea of more nuclear power plants, fossil fuel emissions and the like. Now I am sad because you do not comprehend why I am sad.  [:-'(]





I have never claimed a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.  I have argued with the right of editors to reject a submission without first going to review.

I have no intention of re-reading your posts.  Your time would be better spent in reading my answers and familiarising yourself with the paper, the claim and the model.




.. and that is where I get off this treadmill thread.



I am obliged to answer these posts because it is my good name that is at question.  This is an unfortunate consequence of having a thesis that is in the public domain.  I would expect monitors to rally and keep our names outside of actionable libel suits.  nixietube is flirting with that potential.




 :D

I stand by my opinions. I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device / energy tap, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important. I believe your theory is conjecture, your circut pointless and your methodology flawed.  I think you have been wasting your time.



« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 17:44:51 by nixietube »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #365 on: 14/12/2009 18:42:44 »
nixietube

A thesis is not a theory - a model is not a theory.  A theory is a theory.  Why do you not know this?  What is wrong with you?

If the explanation is convoluted it does not put it outside my competence to explain.  I have chosen not to explain this to you.  If you read this thread you would see it's already been copiously covered.

The energy source that this circuit taps into IS DEFINED.  It has not been identified in bound amalgams is all.  Identified in whole but not in particular.

We have working prototypes.  We have proof of concept.  THE CIRCUIT WORKS

My english language skills are EXCELLENT.  I have that which is published to prove this.

Since you mistakenly assume that we have not discovered the means to unlock this plentiful energy supply then I suggest you cheer up.  Nothing to feel sad about.

And I'm delighted that you are going to get off this treadmill thread.  Will be very glad to see and hear the last of you.

And I stand by my opinons.  We have definitely proven an energy efficiency on an electric circuit that delivers a COP > 4 and possibly as high as COP > 8.  It is proven with the most sophisticated measuring equipment available.  It is detailed in the paper that has been published protem on Scribd - until the 'review process kicks in with the IEEE'.  The theory is non-existent.  The thesis is proven.  The circuit is useful.  The methodology impeccable.  And all authors - all seven of us - feel we have finally managed to bring proof of concept to mainstream science.

I strongly recommend that you read the paper - if you can read - which seems doubtful in the light of your extraordinary inability to understand my presentations.

And finally - thank you for your input in that last post.  Without it I would not have been able to stress these important facts. 


This master of science and such
Has a brain that's in need of a crutch
He buries his qualms
In a waving of arms
Because his logic's just not up to much.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 20:28:36 by witsend »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #366 on: 14/12/2009 20:58:18 »
"My english language skills are EXCELLENT.  I have that which is published to prove this. ".
Proper nouns take capital letters in English. Also, it is perfectly possible to get complete rubbish published, so your assertion isn't valid.
I could go on, but nixietube is doing a grand job at the moment.

BTW, all gramatical errors I have made in this post are included for the sake of irony. :-)
 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #367 on: 14/12/2009 22:59:41 »
I could go on, but nixietube is doing a grand job at the moment.


You are too kind BC. I think it is important to refresh our minds with a post from this thread....



The whole discussion is reduced to absurdity I am afraid. You are correct that the only path for the resistive discharge is through the diode and itself.
  It is hard to understand how anyone who can operate the fancy equipment for the test could come up with such incorrect answers. I am beginning to laugh at the meaningless ness of this discussion.

  I return to Union Square Park in 1956 in NYC to the man with the talking coconut. The coconut said that he had a simple switching circuit
that could power the world. The people did not believe the man with the talking coconut but every night he returned and stated that he had a simple switching circuit that could power the world.
It was funny then and it is still funny today.

  Sorry Witsend. I cannot stop laughing!!! Sorry to offend but I cannot stop laughing.


The clock on my computer might as well say 10th June 2009. I wish it said 10th June 1999. 
« Last Edit: 15/12/2009 13:13:23 by nixietube »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #368 on: 15/12/2009 11:45:04 »
More doggerel for Poor Nixietube

Nix tubular woke in a fright
To discover his brain had took flight
He was left with a hole
As black as black coal
Or the sky in the dead of the night.

He cried in alarm as he said
'I'm sure it was there in my head
I remember I thought
About something I aught
to have taught before going to bed.

But his brain was now sadly far gone
As it looked for some place in the sun
Away from its host
Who was simply a ghost
Of the man whose thinking once shone.
« Last Edit: 16/12/2009 03:56:28 by witsend »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #369 on: 15/12/2009 17:23:59 »
witsend, you seem to have endured quite a bit, both on and off the forum. It is human, when we encounter resistance, to fight back. This is not always the wisest course. May I ask, would you entertain the possibility that there is a conventional explanation for your experimental observations? Or are you solidly committed to the idea that you have a true over unity device?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #370 on: 16/12/2009 02:45:47 »
Hi Ophiolite

Regarding your comment that I may not be that wise to retaliate?  You are no doubt correct - but as you also pointed out - we're all mortal.  The good news for all of us is that Nix Tubular has managed to sit on his hands for about 24 hours.  It amuses me that he chose to quote JerryGG - who has also, apparently left this forum.  JerrGG was not the sanest of contributors - but my own sanity is definitely at question when I put up with all this ad hominem.  But I understand from whence it comes.  Mediocrities don't like to be challenged with new ideas - and when they confront such they try and kill them off with rapid bullet fire.  Fortunately their aresenal empties quick - and their guns misfire - and they usually aim at their own foot.  And frankly - it amuses me to goad them as I have no respect for their want of intellect nor their display of this want.   ;D  LOL  Hope BenV doesn't get here.

Now - to your question.  If there's a conventional explanation for our experiemental observations it can only be that we've made incorrect measurements.  Then the problem is not with the observations but with the measuring equipment.  If it's attributed to measurement error then I suspect Tektronix themselves will enter the debate and that they'll probably defend those numbers. And I'm also very aware of the extraordinary reputation of their measuring equipment which is to oscilloscopes what Rolls Royce is to cars.  Just unarguably the best of its kind.

If it can be concluded that the measurements are half way correct - then we've definitely crashed through classical constraints determined in our second law of thermodynamics.  And since we all know that there is no such thing as 'free energy' it may well be attributed to some heretofore unknown source of energy.  The only known canditate is Dark Energy - widely attributed to Dark Matter.  Happily my model conforms to this.  The difference is that I've attributed it to the 'glue' of matter, so to speak, exactly in the same way as it's known to be the 'glue' of galaxies.  I've also presumed a far wider range of attributes to the particle than has, thus far, been found within the standard model.  This may or may not be a good thing. 

So - on balance - there is a possibility that there's an abundant source of energy that has, historically, eluded detection other than as assumed to be anomalous and irrelevant.  And this energy source is useable and may very well address some of the pollutant effects of our current systems.  No pun intended.

Else the solid conviction remains that the evidence, those numbers, point to a true over unity potential and a co-efficient of performance in excess of 4. 

 
« Last Edit: 16/12/2009 06:33:53 by witsend »
 

nixietube

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #371 on: 16/12/2009 13:51:53 »
The logical fallacy coefficient of this thread is in excess of the claimed over unity potential.


The simple fact remains that witsend takes offence to any post that does not fall in line with his her own views.  He Witsend is the one unleashing the ad hominem abuse. Apparently I am the now the next target because I dare to question. Read the handful of posts I have made in this thread.

It is a simple exercise for the reader to sample any number of posts in this thread, and now in another thread wailing about science loosing its authority, to see this forum is nothing but a soapbox for witsend to preach from.
  :o


Apparently,

This site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

It is not acceptable simply to repost material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.


Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

If you feel another forum user is using insulting language, seek to calm things down, or if that fails, report the matter to the moderators.  Under no circumstances should you seek to trade insults, or make accusatory remarks to that, or any other, forum user.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.msg99453#msg99453



Simple questions have been asked and are unable to be answered. Draw your own conclusions.


Await a frothy retort from witsend below:


edit:  He to Witsend. Thank you for proving my point.
« Last Edit: 16/12/2009 15:15:08 by nixietube »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #372 on: 16/12/2009 14:13:29 »

He is the one unleashing the ad hominem abuse. Apparently I am the now the next target because I dare to question. Read the handful of posts I have made in this thread.

Nix tubular  - Who is the 'HE' that unleashes ad hominem?  Now I know you have not read this thread, my magnetic field model nor any google link, and there are just so many of them.  Golly :o

Rosemary Ainslie  AKA Witsend.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #372 on: 16/12/2009 14:13:29 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length