The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: a circuit that produces overunity results.  (Read 99125 times)

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #50 on: 30/05/2009 14:19:15 »
By the way - I wouldn't refer to it as a 'path to enlightenment'.  I'm not enlightened at all.  There are many, many questions that need answers.  I systematically list them in my field model.  But I'm pointing - in the eternal hope that somebody better qualified can pick up on this.  I cannot stress this enough.  I am entirely underqualified to comment at all.  But I can certainly point at the general shape and hope that someone can get to the 'skeleton' so to speak.  I suspect that the general direction is right because it clarifies so much. 
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #51 on: 30/05/2009 14:33:58 »
Sorry Vern - I think I missed the point of your question.  This is it.  If light is the fastest thing that we have - to measure with, and if something moved faster than the speed of light (the theoretical potential of a tachyon) then how would we ever find it?  And if the something that 'moved the light' - which is an absurdly simplistic description, but bear with me - then we would never know of that something.  It would, forever move outside the range of our measuring abilities, constrained as it is to the speed of light.  An invisible force. 

Does that answer it.  And general apologies to any readers, for cluttering the thread with three consecutive posts.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #52 on: 30/05/2009 16:30:59 »
Quote from: witsend
I had no idea that anything could exceed light speed.  Isn't that the final barrier?  Never to be breached. Needs infinite energy therefore also infinite mass?  I really do not understand this concept except in this very basic sense.  If you're referring to the electron's orbit in the nucleus - then again, in term of known classical theory I understood that 2C was outside the limit of it's velocity?  Have I missed something?
In media, such as water, electrons generated by neutron decay exceed the speed of light in that media. It is still slightly slower than light in a vacuum.

This Wiki link explains it.

Quote from: the link
Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or Čerenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. The characteristic "blue glow" of nuclear reactors is due to Cherenkov radiation. It is named after Russian scientist Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov, the 1958 Nobel Prize winner who was the first to characterise it rigorously.

« Last Edit: 30/05/2009 16:34:09 by Vern »
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #53 on: 30/05/2009 20:08:31 »
I've just looked up the Chernekov radiation effect.  It's interesting.  But it's still, at best, within light speed.  I wonder if this would explain it better.  The model points out that everything has a boundary constraint.  So. If we had a machine that threw rocks - it could do so, provided always that it could lift the rock or detect the rock. Assuming then that it operated in a vacuum - so no extraneous forces to introduce variables,  and assuming it always 'threw' with a constant force, then the smaller rock would be thrown to a greater distance than the bigger rock.  But if it were too big or too small it could either not detect it or it could not lift it.  So, too big or too small and it couldn't interact. That would be its boundary constraint.

Well, what is proposed is that at that 'singularity' or any such, the zipons are 'expelled' from that highly structured, all pervasive magnetic field.  They become truants either slowing down and gaining mass, or speeding up and losing mass.  Either way they are outside the boundary constraints of the magnetic field.  They are too big or too small to interact with the zipons in the field.

In point of fact the model proposes that all stable particles are composites of these zipons.  And both states are required. If the composite were a photon then it would comprise two truants.  The one would be too big and the other too small to interact with the field.  If it were an electron it would comprise three truants, the one being too big the other too small and the third - like Golidlock's porridge, would be just right.  It would interact with the field continually.  And the final more complex composite would be the proton - a fusion of three electrons.

The truants would need to interact with each other.  This is based on the general principle of the zipons need to attach and orbit to express a zero net charge state - hence the structured magnetic field.  In the same way truants would need to attach and orbit to express a zero net charge state. Otherwise they would simply decay back into the field.  The composite truants anchor each other out of the field.  But they still orbit each other.  But it's a helical orbit on a shared and imagninary axis.  In other words they swap places, the one becoming bigger and the other becoming smaller.  Then they reverse positions - and so on.  A really boring dance step. 

But during that orbit - that systematic progression from big to small, they both inevitably also progress towards the velocity and mass of the field which is constant.  If the bigger truant gets smaller and the smaller truant gets bigger - then at some stage they'll get to the coincident mass/velocity of the zipon in the field.  Then, at that point, their composite charge will be influenced by the field and the field and the particle will interact.  At that point the field would move the particle in some direction precisely because it is then within the boundary constraint of the field of zipons - that broad all-encompassing field.

The electron's composite is such that one truant would always be the same velocity/mass of the zipon.  Therefore it moves in spiral which is a bi-directional path.  A photon would move in one direction as it has a neutral charge.  The proton would also continually interact with the field but it is proposed that the proton's field is a closed system effectively generating its own magnetic field or system.

Is that any clearer? 

     
« Last Edit: 31/05/2009 07:51:12 by witsend »
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #54 on: 31/05/2009 09:57:22 »
By the way - the proposal is that the truant is manifest.  But when it interacts with its partner/partners - those composites - it actually partially decays back to the field's coincident mass/size - so to speak.  At that point it disappears from our measurable dimensions.  It 'flickers' out of view.  so the need for symmetry also requires that the 'non-manifest' part of each particle is always there as an anchor.  I've proposed that this is a quark.  While this is co-incident with observation - it certainly is not in line with conventional science. But nor does it entirely contradict known evidence.

So, in effect, we can never see or measure anything outside our own dimensions.  Light speed a kind of final frontier.

You know, what I've been writing about is really very contentious.  I'm surprised that I haven't needed to defend it.  I know from experience that the older generation of trained physicists are positively antagonised.  But younger ones not so much.  Maybe it's because they're just more tolerant of new ideas.  Whatever.  I feel 'spared' and am glad of it.  But I would welcome critical input.  I'm a rank amateur - as mentioned.  Or is it like Puali's complaint to some absurd theory proposed - that it's so preposterous it cannot even be proved false? 
« Last Edit: 31/05/2009 10:35:50 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #55 on: 31/05/2009 13:32:04 »
Quote from: witsend
By the way - the proposal is that the truant is manifest.  But when it interacts with its partner/partners - those composites - it actually partially decays back to the field's coincident mass/size - so to speak.  At that point it disappears from our measurable dimensions.  It 'flickers' out of view.  so the need for symmetry also requires that the 'non-manifest' part of each particle is always there as an anchor.  I've proposed that this is a quark.  While this is co-incident with observation - it certainly is not in line with conventional science. But nor does it entirely contradict known evidence.
I had gleaned from your posts that the truant was manifest and zipons were not. And I see that the difference is that zipons always move at twice light speed. You have thought about the composition of electrons, protons, and even quarks.

You must have learned enough about established theory to disagree with it. What is it about established theory that led you to conjure up an alternative?
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #56 on: 31/05/2009 14:18:36 »
What is it about established theory that led you to conjure up an alternative?
Vern

Just a whole lot of questions.  With the utmost respect to Heisenberg and Bohr - I could not see why we were not allowed to 'conceptualise' the atom or its particles.  It was as much to say that the human intellect was somehow 'flawed'.  This elitist preclusion to 'finding answers' also somehow barred us from trying to resolve the EPR paradox and others.  I fully sympathised with Einstein, the Giant - as I also believe that 'God does not play dice with the universe.'  But Einstein lost that argument as superluminal communication has been proven.  My own take is that God would not have given us logic without intending us to apply it. And I think that the final expression of particle interactions is actually in fractal geometry.

So - in a way I side with Einstein - the difference being that 'he knew better whereof he spoke'. I'm a rank amateur.  But, if I'm half way to some answers then that should be very encouraging to others.  It shows what the average layman can come up with.  I think we give up a lot of our 'rights' when we let one group of specialists tell us what or how to think.  If we've got any right at all it's to find our own answers.  The difference between us is just in the questions that we ask.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2009 04:49:17 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #57 on: 31/05/2009 16:09:01 »
Quote from: witsend
But Einstein lost that argument as superluminal communication has been proven.
I think you will find that superluninal communication has not happened. In the case of tunnelling light pulses, the output pulse is always shorter than the input and is completely contained within the time envelope of the input pulse. In the case of entangled particles, there is a big puzzle about how the partner particle seems to instantly reflect the state of the other particle. But there has as yet been no mechanism for communication.

So it was the philosophically unsound principles of Quantum theory that led you to contemplate an alternative. I have studied alternative theories a lot. A lot of the advocates cite QM's philosophical flaw as a reason. I share your view that elitist preclusion should play no part in scientific study. But I see no evidence that there is a tendency among the scientific elite to preclude such study. We are in fact doing alternative study right here, right now.
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #58 on: 31/05/2009 16:45:31 »
In the case of entangled particles, there is a big puzzle about how the partner particle seems to instantly reflect the state of the other particle. But there has as yet been no mechanism for communication.

Are entangled particles the same as paired particles?  I must look this up.

But I see no evidence that there is a tendency among the scientific elite to preclude such study.

I'm referring to Bohr's insistence that the particles and atoms could never be conceptualised outside of mathematics. 
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #59 on: 31/05/2009 17:40:42 »
Entangled not quite the same.  They apparently 'average out' - no predictable spin pattern.  But paired particles do have predictable spin.  Influence the one and the other responds simultaneously.  I understood that this has been proven at separation distances as great as eleven k's?  Why this distance I have no idea - presumably tested at Cern or some such?  Can't remember where I read this.  So I'm not speaking with authority.  I've just read wiki on this and it seems that there is some considerable effort spent in disproving the non-local effect. 

Here's the thing.  Assume a great big toroid.  Link each part of it with rows and rows of black and white dots so that they connect in really structured strings.  Call those dots magnetic dipolar taychons, with a velocity of 2c.  Call those strings energy levels.  As energy levels it is reasonable to assume they'll influence both particles.  At 2c it will appear to be instantaneous.

« Last Edit: 01/06/2009 04:44:01 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #60 on: 31/05/2009 18:39:02 »
witsend: From way back in this thread:
Quote
It is an entire misconception to assume that science is determined by anything other than sound experimental evidence.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Science attempts to arrive at a set of rules which will successfully predict what will happen under circumstances which have not been 'tested' yet. That's the whole point of having Science at all.
There is a very sound basic principle involving Energy considerations which says that you can't 'get more energy out' of a system than you put into it. There are Thermodynamic reasons for believing this and for expecting it to apply everywhere.
Your system seems to run counter to this very basic idea. To say that your machine can work, you are implying that Energy is not relevant to your machine. Experience tells us that everything involves Energy. Can you suggest a repeatable experiment which tells us otherwise?  You are misunderstanding what Science is all about if you say it is unscientific to dismiss an idea because it runs counter to past experience. If we followed every line of enquiry just because it takes someone's fancy then we would not have progressed at all. We wouldn't be allowed to use a single 'formula' because that would imply that we could predict and outcome.
You carefully avoid using the quantity 'Energy' in your arguments and stick to Current / Charge and Emf which are both vector quantities and can be transformed (independently) any way you want. It is only when you start to calculate / measure the 'dot' product of  two quantities that you can assess what is happening to the Energy / Power.

Why should Science be determined by "popular vote"? If everyone in the world voted that this lump of lead should travel upwards, not downwards, when I let it go, it would still fall to the ground. The whole point of Science is that it tries to get closer to 'reality' than people's votes and beliefs. The only 'beliefs' in true Science are based on experience. That last para of yours reads as little more than pique, to be honest.
But all you have to do is to show us all a working model and we WILL believe you.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2009 18:42:26 by sophiecentaur »
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #61 on: 31/05/2009 19:20:15 »

'Why should Science be determined by "popular vote"?'

Sophicentuar

Indeed why should it?  I tend to agree with you.

'But all you have to do is to show us all a working model and we WILL believe you.'

Thanks for that. 
« Last Edit: 04/06/2009 18:41:43 by witsend »
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #62 on: 01/06/2009 08:25:35 »
sophicentuar, I didn't really answer your post.  I'm not sure if we're on the same page.  I realise that the claim is not only confrontational but that it offends all kinds of laws.  This I know.  The point is that it's not a trivial claim.  As I've written - it sort of goes to the gullet of all know scientific paradigms, especially as this relates to the second law of thermodynamics.

I'm really just a layman with a really sketchy knowledge of anything at all - let alone physics. But I sort of stumbled on a few things in science that I tried to answer - in my own, may I repeat this, amateurish way.  I've been airing those views, rather liberally and although braced for it, have not, thus far, been 'attacked' except in so far as the over unity claim seems to also have a presumptive claim to perpetual motion. I have no idea if this has been answered or, if 'pro tem' it is just put on hold.   

I read your profile and see that you are, yourself, a physicist.  I have claimed in my post that Nuclear energy exceeds unity.  I've only referenced this from the rather restricted reading material that I can get that speaks to laymen.  Can you please tell me if this is correct or not.  I've looked up Wiki and although there's intimations of this - it is never expressly referenced.

I'd be very grateful for your help in clarifying this - if you've got the time.  Or is there anyone, Vern - someone?  who can explain this?
« Last Edit: 01/06/2009 09:09:58 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #63 on: 01/06/2009 13:00:29 »
It strikes me that, if you appear to have extracted some energy out of your battery 'for free' then, as you have a record of the amount of energy 'put into' and 'taken out of' the battery, there must be some other change within the resistor or elsewhere which has yielded some.
Does this effect occur for different types of resistor (I mean carbon, wire, metal film etc.) and is the the same amount? I would be much more prepared to look at your results in terms of some other changes within the load which might produce some energy than looking for this brand new mechanism. You see, this mechanism would surely be showing itself in all sorts of other places - not just in your experiment. Its effect would have to be zero in all other situations where there have been extensive and accurate measurements of  energy in / energy out, else why hasn't it been discovered? After all, the circuit you use is very much like parts of many switching circuits. I'm sure that someone who found their battery didn't run down would pick up on it pretty quickly! Did you, for instance, ever discharge your battery into a normal load and establish exactly how much energy was left in it after your experiment? Finding its capacity, in this way, before and after your experiment, might reveal a difference.
You would also have to examine the resistor before and after the experiment and also look at the long term effects on the battery. How many times have you gone through the cycle? What proportion of the battery capacity have you apparently got out by this means?

There seems to have been some confusion about the implications of traveling at 2c. At 2c the energy is not infinite - from the Lorentz equation. It is only at exactly c that the energy is infinite. Actually 'getting past' c is the only problem. Tachyons could find it just as difficult to slow down as we could to speed up.
The Cherenkov radiation thing is a complete red herring as it only involves particles whose speed is greater than the wave velocity of light in the substance they hit - which is less than c.

Why does Nuclear Energy 'exceed unity' any more than Chemical energy? The energy you get out is consistent with the Mass Defect - but I assume you take E = mcsquared into account. What exactly were you getting at?

You must not be offended by skepticism, nor must you attribute it just to "not invented here". You have to apply Occam's Razor to any ideas and chop out what isn't necessary for the explanation. So far, you haven't necessarily eliminated 'known' mechanisms. Dark Matter has only  been proposed after years and years of striving to explain the situation without it!
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #64 on: 01/06/2009 13:44:47 »
sophiecentaur - I had no idea that 2c could represent infinite energy.  Am not sure what this means. Can't quite get my head around it.

The energy was calculated as per the test.  Not an idle claim.  Many accreditors.  And many circuit variations but all, admitedly testing temperature rise dissipated.  We haven't measured any other type of dissipated energy - motion, signals, whatever.  If you consider it - this type of switching circuit is not usually designed for generating heat.  As a rule, applications are hand operated drills, whatever.  The 'heat' is a nuisance and dissipated over heat sinks.

Does this effect occur for different types  of resistor (I mean carbon, wire, metal film etc.) and is the the same amount?

This I don't know.  We used resisters to maximise inductance.  The only carbon resistors used were to measure current flow.  Not sure what a metal film resistor is.  But take it that the answer is no.  The object was always to throw as much inductance at the circuit as possible.  We also wound our own resistors when testing ac supply sources. 

'Did you, for instance, ever discharge your battery into a normal load and establish exactly how much energy was left in it after your experiment?'

Yes.  This was done extensively.  BP called for that test.  Vagaries excepted, battery draw down rate is consistent with measurements across the shunt.

'You would also have to examine the resistor before and after the experiment and also look at the long term effects on the battery. How many times have you gone through the cycle? What proportion of the battery capacity have you apparently got out by this means?'

These tests and variations were done over a period of 4 years - always repeated.  I eventually published the test in a technical journal.  If you look under my name on the web you'll find an article on it.  I cannot stress enough how exhaustively this was managed.  Nor do I want to elaborate on the difficulties in getting academic evaluation.  Two have been involved but are anxious to keep their names disassociated.

'The Cherenkov radiation thing is a complete red herring as it only involves particles whose speed is greater than the wave velocity of light in the substance they hit - which is less than c.'

Vern and I both realise this.

'Why does Nuclear Energy 'exceed unity' any more than Chemical energy? The energy you get out is consistent with the Mass Defect - but I assume you take E = mcsquared into account. What exactly were you getting at?'

I understood, probably erroneously, that nuclear energy in fact defeated the second law and only conserved charge.  Is this emphatically wrong?

You must not be offended by skepticism, nor must you attribute it just to "not invented here". You have to apply Occam's Razor to any ideas and chop out what isn't necessary for the explanation. So far, you haven't necessarily eliminated 'known' mechanisms. Dark Matter has only  been proposed after years and years of striving to explain the situation without it!

I only learned of dark energy about 3 years ago.  My model was proposed approximately 10 years ago.  I was delighted to hear about this need because it seemed to fit the model.

I am only offended at skepticism when the merits of the test are ignored.  But I'm awfully grateful for this.  I'd love it if you could, perhaps work out where the error is, if possible and, obviously, time permitting.

Many thanks for this considered reply.  it all takes so much time and I know that this is something we none of us have in abundance.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2009 14:03:02 by witsend »
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #65 on: 01/06/2009 13:51:09 »
By the way, battery draw down rates were done with simultaneous controls, batteries recharged and swapped so that the control battery put to the experiment and so on.  When I say it was exhaustive it really was exhaustive.  Not only on two batteries but were then required to test other types.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #66 on: 01/06/2009 16:08:40 »
Responses in no particular order.

Most resistors you can buy are metal film, these days - a resistive film on a ceramic cylinder. Different thicknesses and spiral grooves cut to get the resistance they want. (N.B. they are inductive unless you pay extra for critical RF use.) Metal film is more stable in value and doesn't degrade.

There was a mention earlier that traveling at 2c represented infinite energy but the
1/(1-v2/c2) factor in the Lorenz formula has a singularity only at v=c.

Why wouldn't charge, momentum and mass(=energy) be conserved in any change - Nuclear, included-?

When you say "draw down rates" do you mean metered values of V and I? I was suggesting that the more reliable measure would be to measure  time to total discharge under all conditions. Also, a range of battery technologies (at least more than one?) would be good. How many mAh were needed to recharge the battery after your exercise? Batteries are weird things with odd chemistry and odd charge / PD characteristics

I can't see why one would expect any different results between one non-reactive load and another (heaters, motors, lamps). Electricity is fairly omnivorous stuff and is normally thought of as being unable to distinguish one load from another as long as the impedances are the same. The electrons on the battery plates will only know about the local potential, for instance. If, as you say, the load inductance is the factor, then you could put any inductance you like in series (or parallel) - there's always some combination to give the same result. I must say, the value of inductance of a wound resistor is in the region of nH, which is an extremely low reactance at the low frequency you were using. I refer to the switching times of the MOSfet.

I am having a problem with some of what you write in your paper- interchanging the words Energy and Field. They are not the same beast, are they? The Energy relates to the Integral (work done) as you take a Unit (charge, mass ,current) through a Field change. The existence of a field (like the Earth's gravitational field) says nothing of the energy involved unless you make a change (like changing the height of an object above ground or changing the field of an electromagnet by changing the current).

I still don't see how this effect, if it is as startling (17 times!!) as the Pretoria Newspaper article claims, cannot have shown up on almost every lab bench and in every switch mode power supply and inverter that's ever been built. For the PSUs in Space vehicles, for instance, the designers have been trying to maximise  conversion efficiency. How can they not have stumbled on the effect of small bit of inductance in the load?
The effect of back emf when switching a current fast as been used for years in TV CRT drivers which use the fast flyback waveform from the line scan circuit to produce a high voltage for the EHT  - but this doesn't involve any gain in energy - it's just a convenient way to get a high potential.

Indeed, how did YOU come across it? Did you predict it and then find those results or was it a chance result that caught your attention? How did a (you must admit) whacky sounding theory take you down the avenue of MOSfets and curly resistors?
 
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #67 on: 01/06/2009 17:09:23 »
Hi sophiecentaur,  You ask so many questions - I can't keep them all in my head.  I'll start with your last first. 

Indeed, how did YOU come across it? Did you predict it and then find those results or was it a chance result that caught your attention? How did a (you must admit) whacky sounding theory take you down the avenue of MOSfets and curly resistors?I'm

I'm intrigued with your emphasis 'YOU'.  Certainly NOT a chance result.  I'd never in my life dealt with ciruits.  All I knew of electricity was from Dyson's book on conceptual physics.  I had to go on an extensive learning curve, ably assisted by Brian Buckley and the late Bernard Bulak (friends, both electrical technicians).  I had shown my model to a couple of academic physicists who - like you, were largely amused.  I'm looking back a decade now.  It was put to me that if I had a model, then I should be able to make a prediction.  Well.  I'd never been able to get my mind around the thought that electricity comprised a 'flow of electrons' for reasons which I'll gladly explain but will simply copy a previous post, if that's allowed. 

My own take was that current flow comprised the flow of magnetic fields, as indicated in that paper.  Since my fields had to return to the source 'in tact' I had a shrewed idea that I could exceed those energy constraints.  I also assumed that this would be proof enough.  I was advised, by them, that if I indeed exceeded unity then I could claim anything I liked.  I took them at their word.  The down side was that when the test was up and ready for demonstration, both of these gentlemen advised me that the would not evaluate the performance of 'a machine'.  I think I'm quoting this correctly. Their names, for what it's worth are Professor Violie and a Professor Claymans (not sure that I've spelled this correctly).  I think Claymans has now retired. I think they're both theoretical physicists but I'm open to correction.

So, since then, I've been 'all dressed up but nowhere to go' so to speak.  Their reaction and varying forms of this was all that I could solicit from academics.  Industry is different.  They looked more closedly.  But nobody can progress this until the paper has been properly reviewed and the IET wont forward the paper for review.  Which I find extraordinary.  The more so as I have spoken to many academic electrical engineers who know that paper and the vast majority have advised me to try and get this to a reviewed journal. 

« Last Edit: 01/06/2009 18:21:33 by witsend »
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #68 on: 01/06/2009 17:31:18 »
Regarding your comments on batteries.  The standard test was to run the experiment and a control simultaneously - the control comprising a resistor in series with the battery supply source.  The Ohms value of the control resistor was varied either to match the measured current flow from the test or to match the temperature rise of the test (this latter detailed in the paper).  Either way - there is clear evidence of gain.  When the battery on the control was depleted then both batteries disconnected, recharged and swapped to repeat the test, but with the control battery to the experiment and vice versa.  All resistors with equivalent mass in the control and the experiment.

Then we progressed to different types of batteries, different ampere hours, but essentially confined to lead acid batteries.  That was the test required by BP. 

I have never even thought about infinite energy.  I wouldn't understand it any any context at all.

Draw down rates - I do mean to describe the rate that current flows from the supply source.  VI

I only mean to explain that the tests have been confined to generating heat.  I have never worked with motors.  It may very well give the same benefit.  I just don't know.

I can't explain why this isn't believed.  I knew it would be contentious.  But ten years after the event I am still trying to persuade people to test it for themselves.  Clearly you scientists are not that happy about challenging thermodynamic laws.  And add to that a total retake on current flow.  I think it's probably understandable that you're all a little sceptical.  But add all that to a mere layman coming forward with such extraordinary nonsense - and the justification for ignoring the test could be argued. 

My own take is that science is only determined by experimental evidence and theory must, therefore, give way to fact.

« Last Edit: 01/06/2009 17:52:08 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #69 on: 01/06/2009 21:55:41 »
My only response to your last statement is that I can't be sure what the actual 'fact' is. That is always the problem with   phenomena which are thought to be  new.
What have you actually observed and what was special about your setup that made it behave so differently from a million other such circuits?
There are so many circuits that involve switches, inductors and diodes. I think you could look at the conventional behaviour of the circuit and see where you part company.
I don't think you can dismiss the electron flow theory easily. Electrons can be detected streaming off a cathode and demonstrate mass and charge. Your magnetic fields would surely exhibit a wave nature (very long wavelengths?)
I will watch this space with interest!
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #70 on: 02/06/2009 05:27:50 »
Sophicentaur, This was posted under 'new theories' thread and may explain my problems with conventional explanation of current flow.  I've edited it marginally.

'Wiki definition of current flow requires 'free floating electrons'.  Given that these electrons that come from - somewhere? - also somehow 'attach' to a wire or any such conductive circuit components then can someone please explain this scenario.  Take your average lead acid battery as a DC power supply.  If these electrons 'travel' where do they go once they've reached the opposite terminal?  Through the battery courtesy the 'pump action' provided by the battery?

Now Wiki explains that batteries, fortunately, have 'free floating protons'.  This gets ever more interesting.  Where do these 'free floating protons come from?  Then.  The electrons presumably need to travel through the battery.  Presumably also they do this by attaching to the protons, somehow?  But, if the electrons attach to the protons during their journey through the battery - then we get simple hydrogen atoms.  The battery would then, theoretically, become a repository of pure hydrogen or subtle variations of this, each state - deuterium - tritium - becoming progressively more explosive than the last.

If the quantum of electrons on the wire or in the circuitry, exceeds the number of free floating protons - then we have a problem with that 'cluster' of electrons that cannot get past the terminal.

If by some happy accident the number of 'free floating' electrons precisely equals the number of 'free floating' protons then 'attachment' would result not in a reduction in potential difference but in an increase.  This is because hydrogen - apart from being highly combustible in any condition - is also a negatively ionised atom.  Therefore one would think that the increased ionisation would also result in an increase in the potential difference measured across the battery.  It would not result in a decrease.  What then accounts for the decrease is the actual measured result of current flow?

If, on the other hand - given that these innate logical contradictions were somehow answered by some force not yet incorporated in conventional explanations of current flow - but yet requires the flow of electrons - then the speed at which the electrons again 'detach' from the structure of those protons - would in no way equal the rate at which current is measured to flow through circuitry.

Then, assuming that the potential difference is reduced, notwithstanding the increase to potential difference courtesy the ionised state of these hydrogen atoms, and over time the battery indeed becomes flat - we recharge it - how?  By adding more 'free floating electrons' or 'free floating protons / or possibly both?

So I put it to you that the 'flow of electrons' is logically inconsistent with the known properties of current flow. Here's the thing.  The 'flow of electrons' was proposed as an enabling image - never a fact.  That it then became incorporated into classical definition as 'a fact' is a sad reflection on the reluctance of scientists to grapple with contradictory evidence.  Rather do they just accept all such explanations, the more obtuse the explanation, the more likely it is to be accepted.  It hearkens to the story of the king's invisible cloak. At some point someone must point out the obvious.'
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #71 on: 02/06/2009 06:34:01 »
'What have you actually observed and what was special about your setup that made it behave so differently from a million other such circuits?'
From sophiecentaur

Nothing.  Other than the result was both anticipated and measured.  I have spoken to so many engineers. There are those who flatly dismiss the evidence, provided always that they do not see the demonstration.  Among those that have witnessed or replicated I've had acknowledgement, admittedly rare, that they had seen such results in their past on various circuits, but dismissed them as anomalies.

I'm reasonably certain that shunt circuits do enable overunity results.  But their applications are not intended as energy savers so no-one looks for a gain.  By the way, gains are not invariably evident.  It depends on optimising the frequency - usually, as mentioned, when the waveform first goes into oscillation.  But, just as it can result in a gain, there are frequencies that result in a loss.  One needs that switch to find the optimum frequency.

I also know that there's a fringe group of scientists, increasing in number, who claim over unity.  I believe they base their observations on experimental evidence but am not sure that any of them actually predicted or anticipated this.  But I do know that they're caught on the 'horns of a dillemma' to patent? - disclose? - explain?.  Each phase of this problem sharpens those horns. 

Fortunately I'm only really interested in the model and my knowledge of circuitry and electrical applications is way too sketchy to try and capitalise on it.  But it's a field waiting to be exploited.  Hopefully the electric applications will eventually be more widely used.



 
« Last Edit: 02/06/2009 11:18:31 by witsend »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #72 on: 02/06/2009 18:33:54 »
The final test is to remove the battery and have the system run itself.
Until you have done that you have not shown that you have an "over unity" system.

Since, at that point, it will fail, I predict that this will  be a short thread.

Unfortunately his prediction was wrong, but as he says, why are you using a battery at all? Why not a capacitor?

Maybe because it won't work.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2009 18:36:47 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #73 on: 02/06/2009 19:32:26 »
Why must I use a capacitor?  It works with a battery.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #74 on: 02/06/2009 19:40:43 »
Because it would remove doubt that the energy actually just comes from the battery.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #74 on: 02/06/2009 19:40:43 »

 

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