Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: witsend on 26/05/2009 13:44:49
-
I am most anxious to have this test replicated by anyone who is interested. The easiest reference is through my blog. The circuit will be posted today.
The blog deals with a magnetic field model. The paper, which will be added during the course of the day, details a test that is intended to prove that model. I am braced for a howl of protest. Just know that - to be fair, it needs to be argued from results and not from 'assumed outcomes'.
For those that do intend duplication - here's some tips. Set the oscilloscope coupling to ACrms and DC so that you can see both numbers. Then sweep the frequency range until the wave form first moves into oscillation and starts resonating. Then compare the AC and DC values across the load resistor. If the difference approximates the numbers in the paper - then that's the right setting. Otherwise continue sweeping until you get there. Ideally use temperature as a guage to wattage dissipated as it's widely considered to be accurate. The shunt values need to be averaged. Unless you're lucky enough to be able access a 'real time' record over the entire test duration.
If you move onto other tests using an inductor (more conventional shunt circuitry) in series with a load, then the same parameters but the overunity results will not be so extreme. But the advantage will be that the waveform should be periodic or more so. Results should be between 100 and 600% over unity depending on the frequency and the inductance.
A final test - is the same set up but use one battey as the supply source and take the diode to the positive terminal of a second battery. Then link the two batteries through the negative rail only. That way you'll se the 'recharge cycle'. This does not reduce the energy dissipated and measured across the load resistor. (V squared over R analysis) It give a clearer indication of the benefits in the circuit.
Anyone prepared to comment on the model - I'd welcome this. Apologies if the writing isn't clear.
-
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.
-
Bored Chemist. With respect, I do not claim to have a perpetual motion machine - not in terms of the model, nor in terms of the paper. I have a different take on current flow. That's all. Above unity, but always at some small cost from the supply source for the intial PD
-
Returning to the argument that a magnetic field comprises particles, for ease of reference it would be as well to name this. My first choice was a luminon as this hearkens to an earlier concept of luminiferous aether that was assumed to fill all space. But I have since become aware of the search for zero point energy or the God Particle and, as I am proposing that the magnetic field in fact holds this particle, it would perhaps, be more appropriate to call it a zipon. This is loosely based on an acronym of Zero Point Energy compounded with concepts of infinity, which makes it more of an acronymic oxymoron. In any event it is easier to say zipon than luminon. But I am not married to any of these names and hope that someone will come up with something more appropriate. For now and for purposes of this exercise I shall simply refer to it as a zipon.
I read your paper. It is a difficult read. I still do not have a clear view of what it is that you are proposing.
Zipons that have disassociated from the field are referred to as Truants. The assumption is made that the zipon is removed from its position in the field by some event and it then manifests as matter.
-
Not sure where I've lost you - unless it was probably at first base. I'm pointing to the possibility that magnetic fields comprise tachyons. They are outside the range of our measuring equipment. Sorry Vern, not sure how to explain it without repeating everything written. I had an idea it was difficult to follow but you're the first person who's actually said this. But don't worry about the field model. Unless the test is proven - it's just a lot of speculative writing. I actually thought the writing was clear. But 'clearly' it isn't. The paper on the circuit apparatus is much easier because it deals with the test itself.
So pleased that you've read it - even if it's still as clear as mud. If you have specific questions I'd be glad to try and answer them.
-
Sorry - I didn't read the second reference. The zipon is the particle - many of which make up the 'structure' of the universe, that matter behind all that is manifest. In other words the universe comprises or is filled with these zipons. They always move as a field. Highly structured. Then a disturbance, anything at all - and some of those zipons are moved away from the field. Sawdust from a block of wood? - something like that. They move out of the structured field and then 'slow down' and become visible as matter. Certain specific composites stay removed from the field. If they don't have a precise composite, 2, 3 or 9 - then they regain their velocity and return to the field. I've proposed that these are virtual particles. Is that any clearer. The zipons - these superluminal tachyons - are magnetic dipoles with a velocity of 2 c and a neutral charge. Only proposed. Just an idea.
-
I scanned back through the paper to try and clear things up. So, you have Zippons that are little magnetic tachyons that move at 2 times c. There is some structure that keeps them related to each other while they move at 2c. Any disturbance can cause one of these little guys to pop out of the structure. Once out of the structure it is called a Truant and may be observed as matter.
Does this view of nature help you understand anything that is not clear with present theory?
-
'Does this view of nature help you understand anything that is not clear with present theory?'
Yes. It reconciles quantum theory with classical. It explains the EPR effect and other paradoxes related to superluminal communication. It reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron. It is the source of the strong and weak nuclear forces. It is responsible for gravity and electromagnetic interactions. It's a string theory with a difference. It's proposed that these fields account for dark energy and dark matter. It's the fundamental particle that is proposed to be the foundation of all evident matter. It's a modest little particle with an excessively presumptuous reach. Sorry it's tough reading. I have no idea how to explain things simply - probably because I'm an amateur. I find symmetries fascinating. That's how I came to develop this. But I still need words to describe it all. If I were qualified in the subject I could probably do better.
But it's the experiment that I'm more interested in. Have you read this yet?
-
I did not find anything in the paper about the experiment.
-
I'm not sure myself how these things work. My son told me that the blog has a link? - something. I'll check it up and get back to you.
-
OK Vern. The PDF file has now, apparently, been included and there's a button to press 'here' at the top of the page, which opens the link to the paper. Apparently the same for the field model but that link is at the end of the paper.
-
Ok; I found it.
This limits the amount of dissipated energy, not to the amount of fields
transferred from the primary source, but to the number of transitions through that
resistive amalgam. So it is proposed that the greater the number of transitions,
or the greater their frequency, then, correspondingly, the greater is the amount of
energy dissipated. The object of the circuit configuration is to increase the
number of transitions of current flow through the resistive material.
To this end a switch is applied to inductive components to enable counter
electromotive force to induce an opposing or reverse current flow of the primary
source. Depending on the number of transitions and as evident in this test, the
energy that is then dissipated at the resistor can, in fact, be greater than the loss
of energy or potential difference at the supply source. In short, the energy
delivered by the battery goes back to the battery. And the energy dissipated at
the load comes from the load.
That last paragraph pretty much sums up the whole process. You are switching a current through an inductor and using a feedback diode to capture the back EMF from the inductor to heat the resistor. If what you claim is true, the battery should last as long as its shelf life.
-
If what you claim is true, the battery should last as long as its shelf life.
I'm not sure what you mean by shelf life. If you mean that it should last forever - certainly not. It depletes at the rate equal to the voltage measured across the shunt based on the analysis detailed in the paper. You're the second person who's intimated that the system should be a 'perpetual motion machine'. I believe that it may be possible to develop a 'closed system' of sorts. Certainly not in the generation of heat on any electrical circuitry described here or anywhere. And certainly not on the electromagnetic interaction. One always needs that applied voltage or potential difference from the supply source. And there is always the loss of energy from the structure of the load resistor itself. Neither of these things speak to a 'closed system'. Nor does my model require this.
I have a 'take' on current flow. This returns to the battery either to recharge or discharge it. Specifically the model only suggests that while energy is delivered through the resistor it does not dissipate at the resistor. The energy that dissipates at the resistor comes from the mass of the resistor itself.
-
Shelf life is the life of the battery with no load applied. I can understand why you have problems getting anyone to duplicate the experiment you describe. It goes against the rules of nature that we use to do just about everything.
Anything that can produce more output than is put into it can be reconfigured as a perpetual motion device.
-
I can understand why you have problems getting anyone to duplicate the experiment you describe.
Actually this is not the case. There have been any number of engineers who have duplicated the experiment. The more prominent companies are listed in that paper. My objects in this disclosure and through this forum were to try and widen that experimental base. What is lacking is academic accreditation. They will not duplicate. Nor will they attend a demonstration.
It goes against the rules of nature that we use to do just about everything.
Their excuse is not 'that it goes against the rules of nature'. Nobody that I have ever met, including our most esteemed academics, and I have met many of them, have ever claimed that they 'know all of Nature's rules'. That would not only be insufferably arrogant but it would imply a God like knowledge of all things. I have never, thus far, met anyone who claims such a comprehensive knowledge of all things. Some of Nature's rules may very well be known. But we do not know them all.
The reason that academics won't apply themselves to this question is because it first needs to be published in a reviewed journal. The accepted procedure for any such claim is to submit it for publication so that experts can first evaluate the claim against the applied measurements protocol. If approved then it may be published and - at that point, academics may duplicate, evaluate, whatever, at their heart's content without being marginalised by associating their good names with 'unendorsed' claims. I cannot get this paper to 'review'. Hence my 'beef' with the IET.
-
Anything that can produce more output than is put into it can be reconfigured as a perpetual motion device.
Vern, with respect, you present this statement as a fact. Can you explain it? I can understand that a closed system may operate - somewhere, somehow. In fact I have a field model that I believe is a 'closed system'. But I cannot see how the electromagnetic interaction can ever operate as a closed system. To ask me first 'produce perpetual motion' is, with respect absurd and unfair. It has no part in my model nor my claims.
-
Vern, with respect, you present this statement as a fact. Can you explain it? I can understand that a closed system may operate - somewhere, somehow. In fact I have a field model that I believe is a 'closed system'. But I cannot see how the electromagnetic interaction can ever operate as a closed system. To ask me first 'produce perpetual motion' is, with respect absurd and unfair. It has no part in my model nor my claims.
I presented the statement to explain why it is that folks will immediately see the parallel with perpetual motion when they see over-unity. No one has ever demonstrated a system that can produce more power out than power in. I didn't ask that you first produce perpetual motion. You would probably get more response if you dropped the claim of over-unity and simply claimed better efficiency. Makers of electric space heaters would jump on a more efficient design.
-
Again, the link to 'over unity' and perpetual motion is a misconcpetion. And it is not true that 'no-one has presented' such a device. There are any number of such. The truth is that no-one has managed to publish in a reviewed journal. I never believed this before my own experience of it. Now I know it to be true. The 'lock out' is not at universities but at the owners of those journals.
If you know anyone who could apply the technology - feel free. There are no patent restrictions on this. I only took out the patent to ensure that it was published. That means that it is and has been in the public domain for the last ten years. I am now, for the first time, doing everying I reasonably can, to get the information out there. It is really useable on torches, and lighting generally. Especially low energy LED's. The restrictions, as written apply to the MOSFET. It needs that intrisic diode to allow the current path from the collapsing fields. It would ne nice if these could be made more robust as it could then be used on higher wattages - boilers and so forth. Not so good for signals because of that high frequency - so no good for cell phones. My own interst in this technology is only in the hopes that it will be used. I really don't want financial rewards. My actual interest is in the field model. Here's there's enormous promise.
Regarding the need to avoid referencing over unity. You're probably right. But I'm not a marketer and I don't intend capitalising on the technology.
As mentioned. I just want the technology to be used.
-
By the way - it would also be very useful in battery cars, not to power the car but to recharge those batteries.
-
If it works as a battery charger just make it into a charger for small batteries. If you have a working model, it would be a simple matter.
-
Vern - I am not an engineer. I really do not know how to promote this technology. I need others to take it up - if interested. What I would really like is to find some academics to test this device from their homes. That way - no bad 'press' so to speak. My hope is perhaps to reach such an academic audience. I'm not sure that there are any at this forum. The technology is available - usable - free - clean - exploitable - anything you want. Just don't ask me to promote it. I have no idea how to do this. And I'm not an electrical engineer.
I'd like to remind you that you said you'd test it if you saw merit? Perhaps you could get it onto your bench. You'd know how to exploit it. It's such an easy circuit to set up.
There's always an interesting first reaction to seeing the numbers. It takes a while to digest it. Unity, as defined by our Laws, definitely does not apply to electric applications.
-
it seems that this forum is not going to get the experiment replicated, as hoped. Is there any interest in the field model? That - when understood - shows a much more dynamic potential in energy transfer. Has anyone understood it enough to see where it points? I'm afraid the ideas may be too obtuse and badly explained to be immediately evident. But that is a really interesting field of development and I would love to be involved. Here I fondly believe that not only is there a cheaper cleaner form of generating electricity - but the real means of defeating gravity - et al. I think so, in any event. I can see ways to applying 'broken symmetries' that should produce some interesting effects. I don't have the wherewithall to test it but I can explain what's needed.
-
The problem is that anyone capable of doing the experiment already knows that it can't work.
-
Again, the link to 'over unity' and perpetual motion is a misconcpetion.
I'm not sure what you are claiming is "over unity". If it's the heating effect in a resistor then I can use that hot resistor to run a thermopile generator and hook that up to feed the circuit and an electric motor; in that case it is a perpetual motion machine.
-
What is the point of this new theories forum? Is it actually intended to perpetuate the fallacy that there is nothing new to be learned? If so, its title is a bit of misnomer. It's utterly misleading. I had hoped to meet a group of people who were not only open minded, but also curious about new ideas.
Does it not strike anyone else as strange that this forum has a really restricted number of contributors. I mean really restricted. And there's apparently a readership into the hundreds of thousands, judging from the interest in 'post orgasmic illness'. Why do these readers not 'have their say'? Is it, perhaps, because contributors, such as Vern, parade a cynicism that has nothing to do with good science or with an honest interest in experimentation.
And have any of you considered science has NEVER been determined by popular vote - with the possible exception of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that generated a certain consensus after the war. Even then, the giants disagreed and continued to do so until the end of their lives. It is an entire misconception to assume that science is determined by anything other than sound experimental evidence. And if you can test, but refuse to do so notwithstanding - because it offends your 'beleifs' or because you 'know the outcome' then you cannot take yourself seriously as a scientist. Belief has nothing to do with science. It belongs to a philosophy forum.
-
Bored Chemist. Good luck on that experiment. I'd love to know the results.
-
This is my take on current flow and why it is that 'unity' can be exceeded.
All gross amalgams of matter are bound by magnetic fields that are extraneous to the atoms or molecules in an amalgam. These fields, in turn, comprise tachyons (2c - magnetic dipoles = neutral charge). You can think of it as a 'glue' that holds the atoms together and binds them into 'atomic abodes'.
Unless something moves at the speed of light or slower, we cannot detect it. This is because light itself is needed to measure light speed. Photons are too slow to 'find' these particles. It is like a balloon being blown by the wind. We can only see the balloon.
They are not detectable because the particles are neutral and they move in 'fields' - orbiting, very much like the fields of a bar magnet. Fields of these particles, I've called them zipons, orbit the atoms or abodes, to create and then bind the crystalline structure of the amalgam. Because they are themselves neutral and because they move in orbits that are also neutral they are thereby also undetectable except, possibly, in the Casimir effect.
These particles, zipons, only interact with other zipons. This is because their velocity and mass and charge and structure puts them outside the boundary constraints of visible matter. It is as if they operate in another dimension, yet they interact within our own dimensions in as much as they share our same three dimensions of space. They always move to a condition of zero net charge - because they are themselves bipolar. And so they orbit - an orbit being a mathematically and precisely balanced condition. Just think of magnetic flux orbiting - but in really small fields and in relatively small quanta.
When atoms are imbalanced, by which I mean that their valence condition is such that their outer energy levels comprise either one or three electrons, then the 'binding' fields of zipons are also imbalanced. The valence condition of the atom is precisely reflected in these atomically extraneous fields. It is like having two 'like' charges of a magnet jusxtaposed. They repel. The atoms repel each other and the binding fields repel each other. This imbalance is its potential difference or 'charge'. This potential difference or charge is measurable as voltage imbalance, evident in battery acid, and crystals and other such material. But what we are measuring is not the 'charge' of the atoms or molecules but the sum of the 'spin' of those zipons.
In order to achieve a state of negative zero charge in such an 'imbalanced' amalgam, these fields need to alter the direction of their spin. But like all permanent bar magnets, they cannot simply 'change' their spins. They have to move their entire field. If they are orbiting left to right, say, then they need to change that spin from right to left. That way they will re-balance the experienced imbalance that is measurable as potential difference. They achieve this by interacting with those magnetic fields that bind the structure of circuit components to forge a path through the circuitry to reach the opposite terminal.
Why it can never be a 'closed' system or why it can never become perpetual motion is this.
During its passage through the wire in the 'first step' of each phase of current flow, evident in every waveform - some of those zipons reach the opposite terminal and apply an alternate spin. This results in a reduction of the potential difference at the source. The 'second step' - therefore can only apply some value of potential difference that is diminished in relation to the first. It therefore applies marginally less potential difference - and so it goes. A systematic but consistent reduction in that potential difference with each waveform will result in the eventual depletion of potential difference from the supply source. If it were possible to first move those fields without any reduction in the potential difference then - indeed - one would have perpetual motion. I have no idea how such could be achieved. It makes no part of any claim that I've made.
What I do claim is this. By reducing the rate at which potential difference is diminished - it is indeed possible to exceed the rated performance of every battery. And it is also possible to exceed the output from a utility supply source - or indeed from any electric energy supply source by the means detailed in my paper.
The object of that experiment is to increase the frequency of the passage of current through a resistor by increasing the number of times that current flows through the resistor. This reversed current flow also reduces the rate at which potential difference is depleted.
This is only an idea. But it does conform to the observed results of that experiment.
-
And while I'm at it - as it relates to measurement of energy delivered - this is correctly the sum of the difference in the voltage between the two current flows as current above zero results in the diminution of PD. Below zero does not. Therefore, in effect, wattage delivered by the battery is the difference between the voltage measured above and below zero. Wattage dissipated at the load is the product of both cycles. Self evidently the latter will be the greater.
And in the experiment detailed in the paper, the resistor is also designed to be highly inductive. Phase shift lag is therefore less critical - but still applicable.
-
Bored Chemist. Good luck on that experiment. I'd love to know the results.
The result would be failure. That's the point.
Overunity machines are perpetual motion machines in disguise.
-
I agree that it wouldn't work. Why are overunity machines perpetual motion machines in disguise? Can you explain this? I personally, do not know of anyone who claims perpetual motion. But I do know an awful lot of people who have found 'untiy' as determined by thermodynamic laws and as applied to electric current - to be substantially different. Theory appears to conflict with the experimental evidence.
Is there any possible chance that science may have erred? Or do you think that this entirely impossible? My own knowledge of the history of scientific development is that every known theory has either been qualified or entirely contradicted as it develops through its progress into experimental evidence. And neither quantum physics nor classical physics is capabable of answering all known paradoxes and certain inexplicable effects related to dark energy and dark matter.
There is a very real danger of elevating science to a 'creed' where its foundations should rather be open to continual revision. Unless you would prefer that it stagnate into some sort of sterile belief structure - not unlike the faith required for religious conviction, Not that faith, in that context is a bad thing. On the contrary. But science is based on a proud history of hypotheses and proof. Never has it been based on blind faith.
-
BenV - or someone, can you tell me why or how threads are locked? I had no idea. Are you, BenV overseeing the content of these threads? Sorry. I'm not at all sure how this works? If you've got the time could you explain it? Obvioulsy it's something that I should know. Are there rules? Where do I look?
-
I agree that it wouldn't work. Why are overunity machines perpetual motion machines in disguise? Can you explain this? I personally, do not know of anyone who claims perpetual motion. But I do know an awful lot of people who have found 'untiy' as determined by thermodynamic laws and as applied to electric current - to be substantially different. Theory appears to conflict with the experimental evidence.
Over unity and perpetual motion are the same thing. Over unity means that you get more output than input, the only requirement for perpetual motion. Bored Chemist did explain that at least once.
I did enjoy reading about your concept of little string magnets permeating all of space. One can conjure up pleasing images of those interactions. And I can see how a disturbance could break loose one or a group of these to form matter. I don't know of a direct observation that contradicts this. But I didn't get the connection between this concept and the experiment you purpose.
-
with reference to your comment that 'Bored Chemist explained this - at least once'
'The result would be failure. That's the point.'
I fail to see which part of these two sentences constitutes an explanation.
'little strings' are not quite the concept. But it's close. The point is that there are varying lengths of these strings that structure a toroid. Essentially the proposal is that the universe is shaped by these strings into a toroid. This shape proposed because it is symmetrically the most natural shape for a magnetic field. Some of those strings are as long and as broad as the universe itself. All moving 'in synch'. The 'little strings' are removed from the structure at the the same time as the creation of the truants - courtesty the same 'singularity'. First this disturbed flux forms the stable matter particles, photons, electrons and protons. Then these extraneous fields- from that same flux, bind the newely generated atoms together into their early accretion state. In effect, these smaller fields hold the atoms together by orbiting them. This serves to bind the atoms into amalgams - star structures? But the really interesting part of the proposal that if such magnetic strings exist it would explain so much.
The Casimir effect would be these fields bonding with similar in amalgams. The bonding effect on a small scale is proven but, as yet - unexplained.
And gravity itself. I'll see if I can explain it.
You know the effect of dropping two objects, say two tennis balls, the one filled with stones, the other filled with air. All things being equal then one can expect them to land simultaneously. But, try and lift them and the empty ball has less weight than the one filled with stones. Well, I believe that all amalgams comprise atoms that are bound by these fields. Their weight relates to the attraction of the fields to its proximity with the larger body of those fields that bind our earth into a really big amalgam. The one filled with stones has more mass being the sum of its own magnetic fields compared to the one that does not. It therefore resists the removal more urgently, so to speak. It's seductive because not only would theis account for weight mass within a gravitational field but the net result of all accretion would result in a roughly spherical shape. A Casimir effect 'writ large'.
The fall would be the interaction of these smaller fields, orbiting. This is a little more difficult to explain. Imagine an orbit has a circular motion but one half of that orbit is precisely different to the other half. Well that 'direction' is proposed to be the charge of the field. It has a justification, but the net result of the orbit is that the entire orbit is neutral. So, if these fields orbit, then one half of all the fields that are at the surface of both tennis balls, would conflict with the other half, no matter where they're positioned on the surface of those tennis balls. These fields interact with the earth's magnetic fields which is simply a form of magnetic flux. it too has a direction or charge, being North to South, so to speak. But the Earth's magnetic fields only have one direction or charge. The second half of that orbit is inside the earth itself. This is a potential difference, again writ very large indeed. This is what I mean by 'broken symmetry'. When these fields, say 'north to south' interact with the smaller fields on those balls, they experience one half as attractive, but one half is repulsive. The result would be to move the repulsive fields away at an angle of 90 degrees, which would be the surface of the earth. If they were wholly attractive they would be move moved at an angle in synch with the magnetic fields of the earth. If they were wholly repellent they would be moved in an opposite direction to the the magnetic fields of the earth. And if they were antimatter, they would be move at 90 degrees away from our earth.
The relevance of these fields to electric current is explained in this thread. I'm so impressed that you actually have tried to get your mind around this. It entirely defeats most people including academic physicists - with precisely two exceptions. Thanks for that bit of encouragement - if that's what was intended. Truth is that the whole thing is speculative unless and until I can get that ruddy paper published so that academics can look at the model more closely. The electric circuit is the only proof I have of that model.
-
sorry Vern. I left out a point. The rate of the fall of both balls would essentially only relate to the interaction of those fields on the surface of the ball. In other words the earth's magnetic fields only interact with an object's surface or volume. Weight kicks in when the objects resist removal from 'a rest state' as determined by that 'big' Casimir effect.
All just thoughts. I'd be interested to know what you think.
-
"
with reference to your comment that 'Bored Chemist explained this - at least once'
'The result would be failure. That's the point.'
I fail to see which part of these two sentences constitutes an explanation.
"
OK, that bit doesn't explain it.
Try the bit before where I wrote
"I'm not sure what you are claiming is "over unity". If it's the heating effect in a resistor then I can use that hot resistor to run a thermopile generator and hook that up to feed the circuit and an electric motor; in that case it is a perpetual motion machine."
Were you deliberately missing the point?
-
I'm not sure what you are claiming is "over unity". If it's the heating effect in a resistor then I can use that hot resistor to run a thermopile generator and hook that up to feed the circuit and an electric motor; in that case it is a perpetual motion machine."
Were you deliberately missing the point?
From Bored Chemist
I really do not understand this. From any perspective at all. Firsly I have never worked with motors. I have never seen a thrmopile generator but can guess what it is. And I have explained at length why it is impossible for electric current to be wholly conserved. But the explanation I was looking for was to find out how anyone can reasonably propose perpetual motion from an electric energy supply source?
If you were challenging me to accept the proposal I'm afraid I cannot. I think it goes to Vern's presumption that to 'claim over unity' is to suggest perpetual motion. That 'presumption' is incorrect. I do not claim perpetual motion. What my field model proposes is that energy delivered by a supply source does not itself 'dissipate' at a load. The 'thing' that dissipates from the load is the material that binds the load resistor. It results in 'fatigue' of the material structure of that load resistor itself. The amount of energy dissipated relates therefore to the mass of the load and the current passing through it. When that current is flowing from the positive terminal of the battery to the negative terminal the current diminishes potential difference. When it flows back through the resistor itself - to the positive terminal - it does not diminish potential difference. Both cycles result in dissipation of energy from the resistor.
What I am suggesting is that certain presumptions that require the amount of energy delivered to never exceed the amount of energy dissipated is only correct if you do not switch the current. If you switch the current - even from utility supply sources, then the amount of energy dissipated can exceed the amount of energy delivered.
But I am not simply just 'claiming' this fact. I am asking anyone who contends it to set up the apparatus and find out for themselves. It is repeatedly evident that there is some 'flaw' in classical presumption related to the measurement of electric energy.
That energy is still conserved is not at question. The battery can only deliver a finite amount of energy, related to its discharge/recharge rate, and the resistor can only dissipate a finite amount of energy related to its mass.
-
The relevance of these fields to electric current is explained in this thread. I'm so impressed that you actually have tried to get your mind around this. It entirely defeats most people including academic physicists - with precisely two exceptions. Thanks for that bit of encouragement - if that's what was intended. Truth is that the whole thing is speculative unless and until I can get that ruddy paper published so that academics can look at the model more closely. The electric circuit is the only proof I have of that model.
Yes, it is a speculative model; but you're thinking outside the box. That is good. I suspect you don't have it right just yet. My view is that physicists were very close to the true model of nature at the turn of the 20th century. Then we got side tracked by Einstein's view of relativity phenomena. Lorentz had it right IMHO. [:)]
What I am suggesting that certain presumptions that require tht the amount of energy delivered to never exceed the amount of energy dissipated is only correct if you do not switch the current. If you switch the current - even from utility supply sources, then the amount of energy dissipated can exceed the amount of energy delivered.
But I am not simply just 'claiming' this fact. I am asking anyone who contends it to set up the apparatus and find out for yourselves. It is repeatedly evident that there is some 'flaw' in classical presumption related to the measurement of electric energy.
You've repeated this; we let you get away with it before. But you need to rethink this. It is not true. The conservation laws hold for electric circuitry whether you switch it or not and whether it is in an inductive circuit or not.
-
What are you claiming is over unity?
Is it the heating effect in a resistor?
Do you understand that a resistor giving out heat could run a steam engine, in just the same way that a coal fire could?
Do you understand trhat you could connect that engine to a generator and have it power the electrical circuit that is generating the "over unity" heating effect in the first place?
If the effect is really over unity then this system would be a perpetual motion machine.
Now, do you understand why a lot of us are very sceptical?
-
You've repeated this; we let you get away with it before. But you need to rethink this. It is not true. The conservation laws hold for electric circuitry whether you switch it or not and whether it is in an inductive circuit or not.
Vern, I cannot argue this. I am simply not qualified. The 'litmus test' so to speak is in the experimental apparatus itself. What do you want me to do? Withdraw the claim? Deny the existence of the evidence? Defer all further interest in my field model? Desist from any further involvement on this forum? Is that what it means to be a 'hero member' that you can lock me out of this thread? Will I be 'excommunicated'. If so I'll be in good company.
Who is the "we" that let me get away with it before? I've asked this question earlier. I find it extraordinary that, as a layman, I must argue the merits of experimental proof in a science forum.
-
What are you claiming is over unity?
Is it the heating effect in a resistor?
Do you understand that a resistor giving out heat could run a steam engine, in just the same way that a coal fire could?
Do you understand trhat you could connect that engine to a generator and have it power the electrical circuit that is generating the "over unity" heating effect in the first place?
If the effect is really over unity then this system would be a perpetual motion machine.
Now, do you understand why a lot of us are very sceptical?
Bored Chemist, Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Theoretically there is nothing wrong with the scenario that you've proposed. But everything is wrong with it. I have a magnetic field model which proposes that current flow is not the result of the 'flow of electrons'. My own take on current flow is different. The model speaks to the problem related to the definition of unity and as applied to current flow. Nuclear energy exceeds unity but it is allowed as there is a total conservation of charge. I'm proposing that current flow may be the result of the flow of 'tachyons'. Just as nuclear energy can exceed unity so, these particles can exceed unity. The model also only requires total conservation of charge.
That it is different is unarguable. I would love to be disproved. Thus far my experiment has been accredited by no less than 30 highly qualified electrical engineers including some from ABB Research Laboratories in North Carolina. This is a the Mecca for state of the art measurement analysis. I do not mean to offend anyone. I am not at all qualified in electrical engineering. I am a rank amateur. I just know that until this paper is published it is not going to get onto academic benches which is where its merits should be established or not. Until then - please, please please, do not attack me for not having, or having a 'perpetual motion' machine. I neither deserve it nor claim it.
-
I think the 30 engineers were certifying that their equipment was accurate, if I gleaned correctly from your paper. They made no claims about the functioning of the circuit. [:)]
When I said we let you get away with it, I simply meant that we didn't call it to your attention. I'm just here learning all I can and helping others learn when I can. I wouldn't lock your thread even if I could. We're Ok as long as there is a possibility that someone might learn something. Most of us make mistakes, but most of us finally realize our mistakes.
Your ideas about the way nature works are interesting. But I think you have got it just a tad wrong.
-
'I think the 30 engineers were certifying that their equipment was accurate, if I gleaned correctly from your paper. They made no claims about the functioning of the circuit.'
Indeed, they specifically and in writing, allowed referece to their names as accreditors of the experiment. But I never listed them all - just the more prominent. I think you're referring to Fluke who simply guaranteed the measurements. Spescom applied to Fluke for this so that no-one could blame the results on faulty instruments.
I'm not sure if this is clear. We used Fluke 123 Dual Channel oscilloscopes for measuring power/waveforms et al. Spescom - accreditors then got Fluke to guarantee their instrument. That's why Fluke were referenced.
-
Quick answer to the question further up about locking posts-
The forum rules, to which you should have been directed on joining the forum, are here.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
Posts are most often locked because either (1) they have become a slanging match between someone who is pushing a pet theory (or, often, religious viewpoint) and won't/can't engage in discourse but continues to post the same assertions over and over again or (2) the poster has started a large number of threads on the same topic rather than continuing discussion in the original thread- it may sometimes be appropriate to split discussion if it's going off topic, but if several threads all on the same topic are open simultaneously then all but one may be locked to make the discussion more tractable for people joining.
Also, you did speculate further up the thread as to why quite a limited number of people enter into the discussions in this (new theories) forum. It's mainly because we get an awful lot of very poorly thought out "I-have-reformulated-physics-now-give-me-a-nobel-prize" type posts. Some are clearly ludicrous (ignore well known experimental results inconsistent with their formulation), others might be interesting, but since the overwhelming probability is that they are bunk most of us don't bother to follow links/read papers/figure out where the flaw is, because there are only so many hours in the day.
Forums like this one are only made up of the sum of their contributors (give or take the effort and finance provided by the naked scientists and their funders to keep the ludicrously huge database up and accessible), so the people sufficiently interested to keep reading the New Theories section might reasonably be expected to have a slightly jaundiced outlook on the theories posted here (read some).
-
Rosy, thanks for the explanation. I read through the rules. Why I missed them when I joined I have no idea. Probably because I'm blind as a bat. I had no idea that these posts were 'monitored'. Does that apply to all forums? Probably. I'm new to this. My son has been at me for ages to join such. My daughter-in-law found me this forum. Am delighted to discover a media where I can 'air my views' such as they are. But I've yet to engage in any discussion on their merits or otherwise as I've been embroiled in this defense on 'perpetual motion'.
Hopefully I've not yet 'breached' any rules as I've not been given any warnings.
I haven't found any challenging and new ideas on physics in the forum but, hopefully, they'll come. My own contribution is way too amateurish to be of interest. But it has the dubious merit of challenging known physical paradigms. I was so hoping to argue this. Instead of which I've been hobbled at first base by defending the claim rather than speaking to the effects.
-
I am curious about how you came to suspect that the universe is made up of these little magnet things. Also, I read your patent application. You were wise not to mention over-unity in it. [:)]
-
Vern - why do you refer to 'these little magnet things?' it's so derogatory. Very much in line with your perpetual motion comments. I've already explained why it's not the whole picture. Did you read that post? I find it offensive and patronising. And I'm reasonably certain that you understand it better than this. But to answer your question - I am challenged by symmetries. I can't do math but I can certainly do patterns - which is difficult to explain. It's a kind of logic. But it will mean nothing to you or, in fact, to anyone. It's a kind of tool that I developed. Has all the benefit of symbol and logic without the tedium and vagaries of words. So, symmetry is the challenge and patterns are the tools. And then I just keep asking questions.
I am proud to assure you that I have NEVER read the patent. Not that I'm not interested. But the legalese and jargon are way over my head. Surprised to hear that it has no 'over unity' claim in it. Well. I am given to understand that the patent puts the technology in the public domain. This means that it's been published and no-one should be able to capitalise on the technology. Which is not to say that it cannot be used, industrialised, whatever. Just no-one will be able to call for royalties? It's my own small contribution to our global energy crisis. The trouble is that it appears to be somewhat underwhelming.
-
I didn't intend to be derogatory. Sorry about that. I just wondered what was the path that brought you to the conclusions you came to.
-
Not a problem. I'm way too prickly. You know how inductive laws explain how a changing electric field can generate a magnetic field and vice versa? Well it occurred to me that magnets interact without any evident electric field. I asked about this and was told that the electric field is 'inside the material of the magnet'. Well - that was particularly delicious 'grist to the mill', so to speak. An entire quantum electromagnetic field model with no explanation of a magnet on magnet interaction.
There also appeared to be no experimental evidence available to prove that electric field which meant that other scientists had actually also seen the problem. One published paper - but with inconclusive results. I then set about trying to find out how magnets interacted with each other. It took me ages, about five months of some seriously obsessive 'patterns' - but when I presumed to think that I had found the answer, then everything seemed to fall into place. And I really mean everything. But the field model is really badly explained. So far there have only been two physicists who actually understood it. Both said that it was a 'self-consistent' argument. But as a rule the paper just offends physicists with good reason. I had to invent half the terms because my knowledge of conventional physics is largely bereft.
This might amuse you. My family, who are not usually so rude, say that the number of people who understand my model is inversely proportional to the number of people who read it.
-
This might amuse you. My family, who are not usually so rude, say that the number of people who understand my model is inversely proportional to the number of people who read it.
Yes; it amuses me. [:)]
Your path to enlightenment began with a study of magnets. So you wondered about smaller and smaller magnetic structures until you came to your 2 times c objects. Some things that may seem obvious to you are not so obvious. Like why is it that objects moving at 2 times c are not detectable? Electrons moving faster than c in a medium give off a characteristic blue light.
-
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?
Regarding my model - I'll try and explain it again. Imagine that you lived your life in a glass bubble. You could see out. But you had no idea of such a thing as wind. Not much went past your window - outside. Just light changes from night to day and a lot of sky. But one day a balloon drifted past. Without knowing better it would be, 'Occam's razorish' a logical deduction to say that the balloon is something that has the property of energy which allows it to move at variable speeds and in varying directions. Fair comment.
What the model proposes is the same thing. We've always assumed that light has its own innate energy that allows it to move at that those extraordinary velocities. But what if it was simply interacting with an all pervasive medium - and that interaction propelled it through space at those extraordinary velocities? My challenge was to find the 'shape' of that all pervasive medium and it was most logically answered in a magnetic field. The only straight path through the orbiting field would be it's radial 'arms' so to speak. And that, inded is how light disperses from a source. And, co-incidentally that is also the only part of a magnetic field that would hold a neutral charge. I needed both to justify the first principles.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation)
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
witsend: From way back in this thread:
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.
-
'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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.'
-
'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.
-
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.
-
Why must I use a capacitor? It works with a battery.
-
Because it would remove doubt that the energy actually just comes from the battery.
-
I really don't understand this.
'Because it would remove doubt that the energy actually just comes from the battery.'
From Madidus_Scientia
I have always assumed that the energy was coming from the battery. Where else? Except that we've also done experiments on ac utility supply sources with the same benefits.
-
Why must I use a capacitor? It works with a battery.
I agree with MS. If all you need is a source of emf 'to get the process going' then a charged capacitor would provide it. And it would remove any unease about the true Energy contribution from the battery source.
btw, when trying to get down to fundamental understanding of any topic, I would not recommend Wikki. The theory of current conduction through a metal involves the idea that, in metals, the loosely bound ('outer') electrons of each metal atom are shared by the attraction of many nearby atoms. They move, as a cloud, with the application of a very small electric field. The 'solid' bit of the metal consists of an array of 'positive ion cores' which are immobile. The electrons behave like a gas, drifting through the solid. Don't forget that the average drift speed of the electrons is only a matter of mm per second - it's just that there are something like 10^23 electrons involved in each mole of the metal.
In a battery, the electrons which arrive from the circuit at the positive terminal will combine with protons (or ionised Hydrogen atoms). As far as I can see, the H ions are produced by action between the plate and the electrolyte. Ions move through the electrolyte because of the PD produced by the action at the plate and, at the other plate, free electrons are released by another reaction and they flow out of the negative terminal.
Your idea of forming deuterium and tritium cannot be right - you need Mev's of energy to cause that to happen.
Also, how would you define, in general terms, your "shunt circuit"? You, presumably, mean more than just two parallel components. . . ?
-
Hi sophiecentaur - so glad you're still awake. Still reeling at Madidus_Scientia's dismay that the thread survived longer than anticipated. What a cheek. So glad you answered my current problem. I'm going to have to study it though. I can't quite get my head around it.
Regarding the capacitor - I actually don't know what this is. I only know its used in the switching circuitry - why I don't know. But would the use of the capacitor satisfy the need for a flow of magnetic fields as detailed? I'm entirely out of my depth. Is the idea to use this device instead of the battery? If so - yet again you guys are asking for a perpetual motion machine. Then I really do not see the point. I do NOT have a perpetual motion machine. But I'll look at your comments again. Just remember. I've got a standard circuit and measurement of energy delivered is also measured using classical analysis. Why must I do more than this?
I've been trying to work out the difference between the mass required by nuclear energy compared to the mass required for a battery to see if I can answer that earlier question as to whether or not nuclear energy conforms to second law of thermodynamics. But I'm struggling here.
Thanks for answering this. By the way - regarding infinite energy - I think I see the relevance. It's probably to do with that post regarding zipons in the toroid - influencing particles at faster than light speed. I only wanted to point out that - given that velocity - it's reasonable to assume the 'effect' would appear to be simultaneous. I don't believe in infinity. Only because I can't get my head around it. I need boundaries - all over the place.
-
Needless to say, I am looking at this from a conventional viewpoint so I have no idea of the relevance of your magnetic fields. But, unless you think that the current flowing in the load "knows" about where the driving Potential came from, I don't see how the circuit should behave any differently.
Regarding the capacitor - I actually don't know what this is.
Do you really mean you don't know what a capacitor is? You need to look at a basic circuit theory book if you don't.
-
No, I really do not know what a capacitor is. You can safely assume that there is no limit to my lack of knowledge especially as it relates to electric circuitry. I find all electric circuits quintessentially boring. It was just a means to an end. My only interest is in physics.
-
By the way, I only proposed deuterium - tritium to allow for 'too many electrons - not enough protons'. Not a serious option. I just want to get that off. I'm still battling with your explanation of current flow. Will need to get back to this.
-
I'm still battling with your explanation of current flow. Will need to get back to this.
It's only basics. (GCSE level)
-
I never did science. Secondary education in Zimbabwe - private. Nothing wrong with the standard of eduction but were given a choice of science subjects and I only did Botany and Zoology. My interest - then - was in arts. So am not well equipped to deal with science. Sorry sophiecentaur. I detect a certain irritability with this fact. The only physics that I know, which is way too limited for my liking - is from layman's literature. And while it gives a comprehensive 'overview' it tends to 'blur' the details. It's the details that fascinate me.
-
OK, fair enough. But how can you then decide to invent a whole new Science Theory and expect it to be consistent with all measured facts?
Your experimental results are unexpected but I wouldn't reject them. What I have difficulty with is your explanation which is only partial. I would be far more happy with an approach which uses established models. They are, after all, pretty consistent with experience in all but really extreme circumstances.
-
The first thing that strikes me is that wiki explanation is so entirely different from yours. Presumably then 'free floating' electrons is wrong. It is, rather the adjustment of electrons in the outer energy levels those atoms that does the trick? At least this wouldn't entirely defy Pauli's exclusion principle. But I still cannot understand what happens when the battery is recharged?
If the electrons somehow decay into photons at the resistor - then perhaps it can be reasoned that more electrons are re-introduced into that system when the battery is recharged. That could fit - provided that there's an obvious limitless source of such electrons from the recharger. And they would literally have to leave the one recharge system to enter into the battery. The regarcher and rechargee? The terms get confusing. Anyway, that's another problem. Do the electrons physically peel away from the recharger?
And assuming that there are these 'spare electrons' where do they come from? The one's initially in the circuit I can almost buy. But those that are re-introduced to the system? Is that 'flow of electrons from the utility supply? Then, correctly one should be able to account for the amount of electrons that are distributed from any single supply source because these are depleted at the various loads connected to that supply system. This means that the actual motion of the generator is, in fact, generating an extraordinary amount of electrons from somewhere that get wiped out when they get used up at their various work stations. Is this known to be the fact?
-
Regarding my education or lack of it - I have a tool that I use which I call patterns. I have no idea how to explain this. I suppose it's a kind of geometry. But that would probably be giving it way too earnest a lable. What is surprising to me is that it seems to be enough to forge quite a deep understanding of physics. Certainly I am able to marry my own understanding precisely with known physics. That was my litmus test. If it didn't fit then it was wrong. What may be of interest is that by using this 'tool' I was able to precisely reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. That's why I think my idea of composite particles may just be correct. And why I tend to rely on this 'tool'. It's my substitute for maths.
But I'm not out to convert anyone to my reasoning. To quote Vern, I only want to share what little I know and, hopefully, learn in the process.
I would add that my own explanation of current flow definitely passes the Occam's razor test more than conventional explanations. And it provides for that extra energy. But I assure you sophicentaur, I am not prepared to defend it as I really do not know enough about anything to do so. I'm not a specialist, except in my own strange field of endeavour. And then I'm truly a specialist in as much as I'm the only one who appears to understand it.
-
I would add that my own explanation of current flow definitely passes the Occam's razor test more than conventional explanations.
As you don't seem to understand the conventional explanation, then I don't see how you are in a position to apply Occam's Razor to it.
Does your model explain Cathode rays then?
-
No. I'v been giggling again. I don't really know how to tell you this but I have no idea how they work. Sorry sophiecentaur. I'm hopelessly underqualified. I did warn you.
My field model is probably the only thing that I've ever done in my life that was truly intellectually challenging. Have you read it? It's the best I can do.
-
By the way, I think it may pass the Occam's razor test becasue it's so very simple. Have you read that exercise? I'm adding to this because I think I may be cluttering these posts. I cannot tell you how grateful I am for your explanation of current. It doesn't give me all the answers, but that's only because I obviously do not understand it fully. But I have so often asked for an explanation of conventional understanding of this, and you are the very first person who's provided it. So many thanks for that. I do apologise for sounding frivolous. I know that all these posts take up an inordinate amount of time.
-
Sophicentaur. I thought you were just checking how little I knew. I've just realised the relevance of cathode rays tubes? It's because electrons stream off them and we use them for televisions. This is known, I mean that electrons are definitely the medium that enables the picture. This is really interesting. Does one apply a current through the tube and this then liberates the electrons that forms the picture? In other words, is this proof of electrons being the medium that conducts current
Actually, what I really want to ask is this. Do electrons form the picture or do the electrons first become photons? My own model does allow electrons to form photons but they can't reconstitute as electrons. Presumably these cathode ray tubes don't exhaust their electron quotient. Or do they?
-
Electrons emerge from the (usually hot) cathode and are accelerated towards the screen where they collide with phosphors and light is emitted. Electrons can't suddenly change into photons, can they? How could charge be conserved?
If you don't know about things a basic as this then how can you possibly claim to have developed a model for something as complicated as current flow?
You just cannot expect to explain a phenomenon which has been hard to explain in conventional terms with a brand new germ of an idea without first including and explaining all present phenomena which are already very adequately and consistently explained.
Remember that any new theory has either to include an explanation of all phenomena or else it must explain why it should only apply in one specific circumstance and have zero effect in all other situations.
Science may appear tiresome but we would be nowhere if we had chased every wild goose that came along as we aim at greater understanding.
And what, exactly, do you mean by a "Shunt Circuit"? This is a very relevant question because half of the circuits (or sub-circuits) ever devised are 'shunt' in the conventional sense of the term. We should expect to find your effect all over the place. Yes, I know you say the circumstances are special but, without a deep understanding of what was going on, how did you arrive at your particular parameter values? Audio circuits from the year dot have been subjected to extensive and detailed frequency sweeps and analysis so your 'special conditions would keep showing up as anomalies / imperfections in frequency response.
I have to conclude that, somewhere, there must be a flaw in your methodology which has lead you to an erroneous conclusion. You have then tried to explain it in terms of a new mystic system which you, by your own admission, have not described in detail - certainly not in any quantitative way.
-
Electrons emerge from the (usually hot) cathode and are accelerated towards the screen where they collide with phosphors and light is emitted.
Do electrons decay in that interaction? Is light emitted by the phosphors? And what then happens to the elecrtons? Do they also decay or are they somehow returned to the cathode ray tube?
Electrons can't suddenly change into photons, can they? How could charge be conserved?
I never meant to suggest that they become photons from some whimsical event. I am referring to the fact that when electrons decay in certain hydrogen ions or I think also uranium (may not be right here) - in any event, in certain atoms that are essentially ionised or known to be radioactive, then it is proposed that two photons can be emitted. In other words the electron can decay into two photons.
If you don't know about things a basic as this then how can you possibly claim to have developed a model for something as complicated as current flow?
You're right. If this is how it irritates you, can you imagine how it antagonises academics? I am only grateful that there are some very, very few who even try to evaluate that model. I suppose, if there's any justification, the model does - at its least - give a different perspective on things. Or maybe it just amuses them. Either way, no-one is obliged to acknowledge it in any way.
You just cannot expect to explain a phenomenon which has been hard to explain in conventional terms with a brand new germ of an idea without first including and explaining all present phenomena which are already very adequately and consistently explained.
Sophiecentaur, have you ever considered that - had I been trained in conventional physics, the liklihood would have been very slim to have come up with new insights. It had to come from an outsider.
Remember that any new theory has either to include an explanation of all phenomena or else it must explain why it should only apply in one specific circumstance and have zero effect in all other situations.
I don't think I've done badly here. It explains the EPR paradox, size/mass ratio of the proton to the electron, magnet on magnet interactions, current flow, gravity, dark force, dark energy, and on and on. The paper details the scope. I've got an idea that you've never read the field model. You've possibly only read the paper submitted to the IET.
Science may appear tiresome but we would be nowhere if we had chased every wild goose that came along as we aim at greater understanding.
I agree.
And what, exactly, do you mean by a "Shunt Circuit"? This is a very relevant question because half of the circuits (or sub-circuits) ever devised are 'shunt' in the conventional sense of the term. We should expect to find your effect all over the place. Yes, I know you say the circumstances are special but, without a deep understanding of what was going on, how did you arrive at your particular parameter values? Audio circuits from the year dot have been subjected to extensive and detailed frequency sweeps and analysis so your 'special conditions would keep showing up as anomalies / imperfections in frequency response.
I cannot explain this.
I have to conclude that, somewhere, there must be a flaw in your methodology which has lead you to an erroneous conclusion. You have then tried to explain it in terms of a new mystic system which you, by your own admission, have not described in detail - certainly not in any quantitative way.
On the basis of pure probability this is unarguable.
-
Your ideas all seem to be totally qualitative. Your so-called explanations of EPR paradox etc. are not backed up with figures. They are just arm waving. There is no point in my giving you a course in 'proper' physics. Any book cn do that for you and with more and better resources. I have a feeling you would rather be able to claim ignorance of the more difficult points of conventional Science because that avoids your having to reconcile it with your own ideas.
You are in a win win situation if you neither have to understand what the rest of Science consists of nor back up your theory in detail. You never did relate your ideas quantitatively to your results and that is essential in serious Science.
The circuit experiment of yours is clearly not supported by serious reasoning as you are not prepared to answer some of the very reasonable and simple questions I have asked.
I am afraid that we will have to call it a day- until you do some more homework and get yourself into a position where you actually know some conventional Science. If you are smart enough to come up with a seriously plausible theory of your own then you are smart enough to do that.
-
Sophiecentaur, this is getting awfully repetitive. I have a simple question. Have you even read my field model? On that same link? NOT the IET paper as that only tries to explain current flow in terms of the model. The actual model is fully described on that same link. Written in white on a blue background. This same model is also described in a PDF file at the end of that very long blog. The PDF file has the advantage of a few more diagrams. It's easier on the eye because its standard black print on a white background. It also has more diagrams in it. This field model excercise reconciles the size/mass ratio of the proton to the electron. It attributes the 'god particle' with the property of mass, charge and velocity, It determines the composites of that particle which would result in OBSERVED properties of known particles. It goes much further than that because it proposes how a magnetic field is structured and what structures it.
In conventional physics there are many unanswered questions. May I list some. The EPR effect, many questions related to superluminal communication, magnet on magnet interactions, an understanding of gravity and many questions related to dark matter and dark energy. I have proposed that the existence of this particle goes some considerable way to explaining these and about twenty unanswered imponderables. I've described it as variation of a string theory. The difference is that only a very few people understand string theories. And they are also string theorists. Anyone can understand mine.
About the quality of the writing - here you have every reason to complain. It's words - not math. But if you want to know why I ever attempted it - it's precisely because I took up Pauli and Einstein's challenge that physics should be explicable with the use of simple concepts. Pauli went further. He said that if it's not understandable to your average high school student then it's probably wrong.
And the electric circuit - albeit simple - is excessively boring to argue in any context at all. Just look at the numbers in that test and compare this to classical electrodynamic requirement. One or other is wrong or perhaps quantum physics does not give the whole answer.
This entire exercise has taken me ten years to 'bring it to the table' so to speak. I chose this forum because, among the many that I had looked at, the level of readership here seems superior to others that I've seen. I welcome any critical denial of the concepts themselves.
And to ask me to understand conventional terms in electric current theory - I simply cannot. It defeats me because I find it to be inherently contradictory. Just as you are irritated at my lack of knowledge of it, I am supremely irritated at its foundational concepts. If I could reconcile these then I'd possibly get more interest.
As I've written in my paper, the electromagnetic interaction is simply not evident in a magnet on magnet interaction. No-one to this day, has found an electric field when one magnet interacts with another. That's huge.
-
What does your (pen)ultimate sentence mean?
If you can't comment about and won't learn conventional Science because it "annoys" you then you aren't really in a position to reject it validly. Just because you don't like it is no reason at all.
I really don't see why I or anyone else should trudge through your paper, when I have increasing doubts about your ability to understand a well established system which you appear to reject out of hand. What guarantee have I that it will make any more sense than the sentence I refer to, above? You seem to suggest that you have described, in one document, a complete new model. Amazing.
-
Hi Sophiecentaur. You challenge me on absolutely every level. It's what I hoped for from this forum. But I cant win this argument if I'm first criticised for not arguing the whole thing, and then for arguing it.
But I hear you. There's no guarantee that you'll get anything out of it, other than a headache. I feel shy that the exercise is so clumsily explained. But I've taken my courage in both hands and 'put it out there'. I hope you'll read it because I've got a shrewd idea that you would probably understand it.
But I'm braced for attack in the unlikely event that you do.
My hope, for what it's worth is that it's eventually read by a real scholar. It needs to be whipped into better shape and published. If I'm ever included in such an exercise, then that would be the ultimate prize. But you see for yourself. It's out there. So anyone can do with it anything that they please. And though clumsily explained there are some seminal ideas there.
-
I just looked through your paper. It is no more than a list of assertions with no supporting, quantitative, evidence and no cohesion. I wish I had looked at it before and not at your "shunt circuit" paper. It is total non-Science from beginning to end.
The paper neither explains nor resolves anything; it is just a technical name-dropping exercise.
Read a few serious publications and you will find reasoned argument, maths and measurements; your paper has none of these.
-
I didn't expect and attack before you've read it. I take comfort that you've only 'scanned it'. I have never 'dropped names'. I pride myself of always admitting to what I do not know. But by the same token I believe I can take pride in what I do know.
-
Deleted
-
Well, if you don't like scrutiny, you shouldn't invite it, should you?
What is your paper but a list of assertions? Where is there any reasoned argument, backed up by evidence? I didn't have to read every word to spot the lack of Maths and Data, which are the basis of all good Science. In a paper which claims to have such a significant message, I would expect lots and lots of both.
If this is too much for you, I'll just stop posting here.
-
Witsend - we don't normally lock threads on the original poster's demand, and certainly don't delete them.
I can certainly sympathise, but I also agree with Sophiecentaurs position.
Instead of locking or deleting the thread, lets try a different tack. The problems are centred around the hypothesis put forward in your paper, not the practical aspects (i.e. the results you are getting from the circuit), so lets go back to looking at the circuit.
As the hypothesis is the cause of contention, it's best if we ignore it for now.
So...
I'm a zoologist by training and so this is all above my head. If I can summarise what I think you are saying:
You have a design for a circuit that, when you tested it, appeared to give more energy as heat than was being drawn from the battery. Is that correct?
So, how did you come up with the design? As Sophie pointed out, there's either something unique about your circuit that means it's never been spotted in similar circuits, or something could be out in the calculations, or you could have discovered something new.
-
'So, how did you come up with the design? As Sophie pointed out, there's either something unique about your circuit that means it's never been spotted in similar circuits, or something could be out in the calculations, or you could have discovered something new.'BenV
I cannot explain why it has never been spotted. If the calculations are out then some highly qualified engineers have not found the error. But this question is still open because I cannot get it to academic forums for accreditation.
It was the required result from my field model. Now how do we get past that one? The answer's in the field model. And thanks to Sophiecentaur's contribution anyone who would otherwise perhaps have taken the trouble to read it will now not do so.
I have NEVER assumed that the model, as written is publishable. What I was hoping is that someone qualified could bend their head around the problem and try and explain it in conventional terms. That exercise is beyond me. But if the logic in the paper is debatable - the logic in conventional physics is equally so - especially as this relates to quantum electrodynamics. It is a field that has achieved the greatest breakthroughs in science. But its proponents are in danger of putting it out of the realm of simple inspection. They protect it's excellence with a dedication that is better likened to the smug pretentions of the early Church. They took about 600 years to admit an error. I'd hate to think our scientists will take that long.
I found the fault with quantum electrodynamics - that I fondly believe is 'blocking' the progress of all science. I proved it on the circuit. But now I must defend my position by arguing the error with the use of mathematics. I can't. All I can do is apply simple logic.
I think Sophiecentaur took about four and a half minutes to 'scan' as he puts it, the entire paper - and then reply to me that it's nonsense. That writing took ten years to 'pen'.
My intention in putting it forward on this forum was in the wild hope that there would be such a person to try and understand it. I'm happy if the writing amuses people. I'm even happy if it is argued. But I can do nothing when it is dismissed without being read. That's the same attitude that the IET take when they won't forward my paper for review.
-
But if the logic in the paper is debatable - the logic in conventional physics is equally so - especially as this relates to quantum electrodynamics.
...
I found the fault with quantum electrodynamics - that I fondly believe is 'blocking' the progress of all science. I proved it on the circuit. But now I must defend my position by arguing the error with the use of mathematics. I can't. All I can do is apply simple logic.
But by your own admission, you do not understand the conventional physics. In order to decry it as wrong, you first need to understand it.
It is a field that has achieved the greatest breakthroughs in science. But its proponents are in danger of putting it out of the realm of simple inspection. They protect it's excellence with a dedication that is better likened to the smug pretentions of the early Church. They took about 600 years to admit an error. I'd hate to think our scientists will take that long.
Do be careful not to fall for the trap of thinking that because your interpretation has not yet been accepted, there is some kind of conspiracy in science. Science is pragmatic and scientists will admit when they are wrong. This sort of comment will buy you no friends here (you're not the first to suggest this sort of thing).
It was the required result from my field model. Now how do we get past that one?
We simply ignore your field model. How did you design the circuit? It's essential that you tease apart the results you have seen from your interpretation of those results, should you want people to seriously look at the results themselves.
-
I actually de-registered from the forum - ThAT Sophiecentaur - an example of 'pique' which you've accused me of before. Your preveious reference was inappropriate. But I've now re-registered. I'll tell you why. I realise that your reaction to my field model is entirely understandable. I'd overlooked the fact that you're at that age where you simply can't bend your mind around new concepts. How stupid of me. For a while there I thought your opinion mattered.
That you tend to bluster and complain, and dismiss my efforts with such wide, sweeping criticisms - rather than tackle the actual points that I raise, is just further proof of this. You see, the mind also suffers a kind of arthritis. That's why the over sixties simply cannot understand the model. So indeed, I'd rather suggest that you don't read it. I'd hate it if it made you any more apoplectic.
-
And Benv - thank you for trying to rescue this argument. I'm really grateful. I apologise for the petulance of my previous posts.
I took the trouble of withdrawing the last two posts as they were entirely inappropiate.
Your point is taken. Why argue the model. The entire object of this thread was to challenge readers to duplicate the test itself. The model can come afterwards.
Many thanks again. An apologies for my somewhat emotional reaction.
I actually withdrew the thread to the blog which references the paper. I'm now re-installing it for anyone interested and would ask everyone to NOT READ the model that comes with it.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
-
I actually de-registered from the forum - ThAT Sophiecentaur - an example of 'pique' which you've accused me of before. Your preveious reference was inappropriate. But I've now re-registered. I'll tell you why. I realise that your reaction to my field model is entirely understandable. I'd overlooked the fact that you're at that age where you simply can't bend your mind around new concepts. How stupid of me. For a while there I thought your opinion mattered.
That you tend to bluster and complain, and dismiss my efforts with such wide, sweeping criticisms - rather than tackle the actual points that I raise, is just further proof of this. You see, the mind also suffers a kind of arthritis. That's why the over sixties simply cannot understand the model. So indeed, I'd rather suggest that you don't read it. I'd hate it if it made you any more apoplectic.
I've known Sophiecentaur on here for a while now, and I'm afraid your judgement of his character is way off the mark. His age is irrelevant, and his opinion is one that I would value.
I think there are a few reasons why your hypothesis riles people (bearing in mind that I have not read it - as I said before, it's not my field). Firstly, if you don't understand the conventional model, then how can you be in any position to claim your model is superior? And secondly, the conventional model is backed up with years of research and, importantly, the maths behind it.
But, getting back to the circuit. Where in industry would you find a similar circuit? Why do you not think that over unity equates to perpetual motion? Would it not be an interesting follow up to extract that heat for electricity generation and see how much you generate?
-
BenV - where do I find that neat trick that you guys do with quotes. I can't find it?
'I've known Sophiecentaur on here for a while now, and I'm afraid your judgement of his character is way off the mark. His age is irrelevant, and his opinion is one that I would value.'
I have no comments to make about Sophiecentaur's character. I have looked at his posts and I find them entertaining, informative and witty. As a contributer to the forum I think he's a very real asset. In fact I have taken the trouble to read just about everything that he's written here and that's simply because I find his acuity and wit both readable and enjoyable. It is precisely because of this that I tolerated his early first post in the thread and tried, notwithstanding - to solicit his interest. I'm not sure how objective you're prepared to be, but read it for yourself.
I think there are a few reasons why your hypothesis riles people (bearing in mind that I have not read it - as I said before, it's not my field).
My hypothisis - if such it is, only riles the older academic physicist. I know this. Younger ones tend to tolerate it better. And I will put on record that two such, also academics, actually appear to understand it. The surprise was to find a non-academic also objecting in the same way that other older academics object. I presumed to see a parallel here. And if I took exception it's because - by the best calculation Sophiecentaur 'glanced' at the paper for a maximum period of 4 minutes.
Firstly, if you don't understand the conventional model, then how can you be in any position to claim your model is superior?
I cannot understand the existing model because it makes no sense. Let me point out a little known truth. Nobody knows what energy is. It is known to be sourced from four forces, some say three. These are gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Some people ascribe the weak nuclear force to the electromagnetic force. The miracle of our physicicts is that, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, they are able to use and apply their knowledge of these forces with breathtaking and impeccable accuracy. That is the truly amazing.
But notwithstanding this no-one actually knows what energy is. The fact that current flow is ascribed to the flow of electrons is still a question that is actually also still out there. If it flows as a current - like a stream of something - then it flatly contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle. And Dyson emphatically states that it is not the flow of electrons. So does Gary Zukov in his book - the dancing wu li masters. If it is not a 'flow' but rather the interaction of 'clouds' of valence electrons with sundry ions in various structures and amalgams, then what is added to a battery when it's flat and needs to be recharged? It can't be electrons because electrons are widely considered to be stable particles, and not able to decay. So whatever property is re-introduced to the battery during the recharge process, cannot be more electrons else your average battery would eventually be chockablock full of a surplus of electrons. Nor are electrons simply able to change their charge or indeed any of their properties.
However, there is a possibility that one electron can decay into two photons in certain unstable atoms. And therefore it can be argued that electrons decay at the various work stations as photons. This is because photons are known and measured to be dissipated at resistive loads. This would be consistent with measured evidence. But an extension of this argument then requires that your average generator would need to also generate an inexhaustible supply of spare electrons in order to account for the amount of heat dissipated at your average household and the vast number of such houses connected to your average supply grid. This is somewhat unlikely. And even if this were managed, the question remains. Where do these spare electrons come from? And so it goes. Wiki explanation of current flow is so full of holes it's almost comical. Whatever comprises a current flow is defintely not consistent with classical theories of this.
What I am daring to point to is that the entire field of quantum electromagnetic dynamics is not entirely consistent. That it is the single most extraordinary field of endeavour with - among all branches of phyics - the most consistent and effective reach in its applications - does not also put it beyond the reach of further questioning and analysis. Yet there are those in the field of physics and engineering who are offended at any questions applied to its fundamentals. They say it is a complete theory.
And secondly, the conventional model is backed up with years of research and, importantly, the maths behind it.
I have never objected to the research or the math. I apply myself to the former and use the tools of the latter strictly in terms of classical methods.
But, getting back to the circuit. Where in industry would you find a similar circuit? Why do you not think that over unity equates to perpetual motion? Would it not be an interesting follow up to extract that heat for electricity generation and see how much you generate?
The circuit, as mentioned by Sophiecentaur and, indeed myself, is used everywhere. I have spoken and spoken about perpetual motion. Please do not ask me to go over those points again. They're here, in the early part of this thread.
Your last question is beyond my abilities and I'm just not that interested. I do not have perpetual motion. The thought that this could ever happen on an electric circuit has nothing to do with my claim. In any event I would not know how to. It's like saying, I see you have arms. But can you fly? Perhaps someone else can do that. I believe these tests have been done or are intended - on another forum? But I do not belong to that forum and I think it's inappropriate to interfere with that progress.
BenV. This is a challenging field. That I continually point out my own inabilities is really intended. But I would ask you, by the same token, not to underestimate what little I do know.
-
I think I am allowed to reply to you unworthy personal attack, witsend.
I spent longer than you claimed on reading that paper of yours and I have spent some more, subsequently. My re-reading merely confirms what I thought at first. My arthritic brain has clearly not lost its capacity for rapidly absorbing new information.
Your 'Theory' / 'model' is neither a theory nor a model. It does not give any indication of how to predict the outcome of any of the situations it claims to deal with because there are no numbers involved.
(Except regarding Quarks. Do you have any idea what a quark IS? Do you know where they fit into the history of fundamental particle research and theory? Apart from having a quirky name, what was it that appealed to you about them?)
The paper is, in fact 'just chat' about a large number of Science topics, involving some advanced concepts.
You have, actually, been disingenuous in your replies to many of my questions. You claim that your theory "naturally" led you to the sort of circuit on which you did your tests. You claim to know very little of electronics (your lack of knowledge of metal film resistors and capacitors confirms this) yet you, out of the blue, chose to devise a circuit involving a MOSfet (a fairly sophisticated device, as a matter of fact).
I have to conclude that someone else must have suggested and designed the circuit (nothing wrong with that, in principle, of course but you could have mentioned it) and that it, in fact, came quite independently of any 'field theory'. Why are you not prepared to publish the causal link between your 'blue' paper and the design of the circuit? What calculations revealed to you the specific conditions that would make the circuit work?
Where is the consistency in your message? On the one hand you assume that you are qualified to discuss the structures of electrons and protons but you admit to not knowing about the operation of a Cathode ray tube.
You talk of atomic structure as if your model can explain it all. Does your model predict the wavelengths of the series of spectral lines that Hydrogen atoms produce? The old model, for which you have no time, did that nearly 100 years ago.
You mention "strings". Well, that is extremely brave of someone who claims to know little of Science. Do you know about multiple dimensions of the space which is required for string theory?
There is a section on "fire and combustion" as if this were some mystical situation. It's just Chemistry, isn't it?
And Black holes are mentioned. Where is the detail of how your theory can relate to them? You "suspect that fast moving magnetic fields may be the source". On what possible, numerical, grounds can you make that statement?
I have made this point many times but I will repeat it. If Science is as useless as you claim it to be then how is it that you are using the internet at this moment? Scientists had to be right about Optics, Space Physics, Electronics and Materials Science to a very high degree of (Numerical) accuracy in all these fields in order to let you talk to us on your computer. You claim that it "doesn't make sense to you". You are making confident use of it all day and every day. I think you owe it to the system to learn a bit more about it before you try to dismantle it. "Know your enemy".
If you want to get involved with Science, then you owe it some respect. I don't mean respect for individuals; I mean respect for the system. There are ground rules which, if you don't follow, you can't consider your work to be Science.
First rule is: learn as much as possible about the existing system. If you aren't prepared to do that then it's just not worth while going further.
Second rule is: if you want to advance Science with new ideas, they must embrace and explain (quantitatively) all of the reputable evidence to date.
Third rule: remember that 'Arm waving' is not Science. (That's the same as rule 2, effectively)
Fourth rule: don't get ratty when people disagree with you or dismiss you ideas. It may just be that they know better than you and have enough experience to spot flaws that you may have missed
BTW, there's an "Insert Quote" icon on the toolbar when you 'reply' or 'modify' a message. Or you can do "square bracket" quote] blah blah blah[/quote] in the quick reply. The first "square bracket" had to be in text or you'd have just seen a quote.
-
If my attack was unworthy then how do you describe your own?
If you dismiss the model on the basis of it having no predictive value how then do you explain the prediction that unity could be exceed on electric circuitry? I could also reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron as proof of the composite nature of stable particles. I also gave the particle a charge, velocity and mass - and, for that matter, a name.
I've described MY definition of quark - in the paper. It is that particle that anchors a stable particle outside the field. Could you understand the explanation? But the problem with my stable particle is that photons and electrons also need a quark. That is NOT in line with conventional physics.
You claim that the paper is 'just chat'. If it is chat - it's relevant, and I think lucid.
You claim that your theory "naturally" led you to the sort of circuit on which you did your tests.
Indeed. And I'll say it again.
Not only did I describe why I put the circuit together but I told you the names of the people involved. Do you read anything in these threads or do you imaagine what's written? I expressly advised you about my conversation with Professors Violie and Claymans. I then found Bernard Bulak in the yellow pages, looking for work. He put the first circuit together. Unfortunately he was very sick. I then found Brian Buckley. Brian put the circuit together with more senstive switches. Thereafter the numbers became ever more and more evident. We tested over a period of 4 years. I went on a steep learning curve. I've written all this. All I wanted to do was to interrupt a current so that I could induce reversed magnetic fields to return it to recharge the source. And while doing so, I also needed to get that current through the load. That way, it doesn't take genius, I knew that the product of the energy dissipated at the load would exceed the sum of the energy delivered by the battery.
If you're asking for the relevance of the circuit to my theory I'll explain it again. Gladly. The Laws of Induction - Farraday and then Maxwel. Farraday determined that a changing magnetic field induces and electric field. Then, Maxwell - a changing electric field also induces a magnetic field. But no-one could tell me how a magnetic field interacts - very energetically - with another magnetic field. I asked - everywhere. I looked - everywhere. The only thing I found was reference to one paper - forget which - that had inconclusive evidence of an electric field.
That was when I tried to find my own answers. I cannot understand your average text book. I've never done any science or math. But I could do my own patterns to represent charge. I've also written this. I need symmetry. And to get to symmetry I use patterns. And to fully understand this I also used magnets. Lots of them. I proposed that we can't see the particle in the field because it's just way too fast. But where does it come from? Why does it do all this? These things I tried to answer in my field model. I used simple deductive logic - a dialectic, also principles that I call correspondence principles - and symmetry. My only rule was that it had to match known facts. I've written it in my model. I've also described it in these posts.
And what I concluded is that these little particles, - I described it as a modest little particle with a really presumptuous reach - could actually be all that is needed. I concluded that the universe is a 10 dimensional binary system comprising nothing but lots and lots of this particle.
If I talk about the atomic structure at all - it's to suggest that the particle could be conceived in fractal geometry. I have read and do understand classical models of the all these atoms. I've told you that my rule was that the model had to conform to known physics. To the best of my knowledge my composite particles precisely conform to the properties of these stable particles.
I ascribe the model to having coincidence with string theories - not because I understand string theories but because I know that string theorists need many dimensions, in most cases more than I do. You must remember that string theorists are the ONLY ones who can get to a unifying principle. The problem is they propose a particle that no-one can find. I know this. They've been looking for 10 years for either a heavy bosun - ? can't remember which or a tachyon. Huge amounts of money have gone into this. To date - approximately ten years after the event they have found absolutely nothing. Their last hope is at Cern - or at some new accellerator? I forget where. Whatever, I only need 10 dimensions. I've precisely described the reasoning that led me to this in my field model. Have you read it? Not the generalised conclusions. The actual dialectic that led to the development of those dimensions.
I'm glad you asked about fire and combusion. This, like current flow - is one of those things that are explained without being explained. I was watching Discovery one night and one of the scientists actually mentioned that no-one had actually ever been able to explain fire. I think it's defined as a chemical reaction? requiring oxygen. I'm not sure how a nuclear 'fire' is explained. In any event. I only added my own take on 'fire' because it's so entirely explicable in terms of my model. More to the point - if the explanation is right - then it has the advantage of proving that atomic, molecular and all amalgams are bound together by these fields.
Did you read my post of gravity? And the Casimir effect?
Where have I ever criticised science. I love it. Passionately. I am in awe of the Giants and I envy the training of conventional scients. I am entirely blown away by physics. I have nothing but the highest praise and esteem for it anyone who tries to progress it. I study it - to the best of my abilities - all aspects of it. This is no half-hearted love affair. It's all engrossing. It's just that its proponents are very often intractable, critical, smug, unbending, dismissive or just simply too old.
Your 4th rule. If they know better - then let them explain the 'flaw' - not the general impression - the ACTUAL flaw, both in my model and in my experiment.
Had you found it in yourself to say anything constructive, then I might also have been able to accuse you of being objective and unbiased.
Thanks for the explanation of Quotes. I'll try it next time.
-
I was attacking the paper - not you, witsend. There is a difference.
Where have you demonstrated that any of you ideas actually produce a number, such as the mass size ratio? Do we all just accept that you have done it or are you prepared to show it on paper? It is not enough just to say you understand this and don't understand that but everyone must accept what you say.
And what I concluded is that these little particles, - I described it as a modest little particle with a really presumptuous reach - could actually be all that is needed. I concluded that the universe is a 10 dimensional binary system comprising nothing but lots and lots of this particle.
What sort of a scientific statement is that? Where is the basis?
I cannot understand your average text book.
If you don't want to join the club then you can't expect the club to accept what you have to say.
The same goes for all the other things in the paper which claim to have been sorted out. Science is involved, from beginning to end, with NUMBERS. There are no numbers in the paper so it does not constitute Science.
Do you not appreciate that?
The Paper just talks, vaguely, of what you claim to have done - you need to spell it out or it is of no significance.
Like I said - does it reveal what actual wavelengths of light a Hydrogen Atom should emit? That would be real Science.
Could I use that Paper as a basis for building a Nuclear Reactor or planning a mission to Mars? No. Why not? Because there are no numbers - no hard facts - just arm wavings. They describe an alternative world which is, possibly, fascinating but it is just fantasy. It wouldn't allow you to calculate where to put two kids to balance them on a seesaw, leave alone explain and predict how an electron might behave.
What logical step could possibly take you from your paper to the circuit? In fact, why did you choose an electronic experiment?
Without the backup of statements like "The inductance of a coil would be X microhenries and the rate of change of current would be Y A/second, so the induced emf would be Z and that should appear blahh blahh.." with X and Y stated, then it is without substance. I know from bitter experience, that 'hopefully' assembling circuits produces nothing useful. Successful circuit design requires knowledge and care. Where was your design philosophy for the experiment. Where (again) did you get the parameter values? "Try 12V"," Try 56ohms", "Try 6.73kHz", "See if it works"?
If you did more than that, you need to publish the details to be taken seriously. I don't think you actually want to be pressed in that direction. I can't think why (if you are for real, that is).
-
If I'm for real? What does that mean? Am I a ghost?
Sophiecentaur, I know now that you have not really studied my writing. I refer to specific comments by you and you bypass them to jump to another criticism. I have detailed numbers, as you refer to it - on all aspects of the model, right up to and including stable particles. That I've expressed the model with words is because, as I've written, I could hardly expect anyone to understand my patterns. And I certainly do not know math, other than the simple elementary analysis required for measuring electric energy. The predictive properties of the model are impeccable. They precisely account for dark energy and dark matter. It precisely accounts for the difference in the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. It precisely identifies the 'thing' that determines our speed of light constant. And it has the added advantage of explaining paradoxes that relate to superluminal communication and others.
What is irritating you is that I, as a non-scientist - can propose anything at all. Well you see, logic is not the exclusive property of science. And after all these years I think perhaps I am a kind of scientist. Maybe a conceptual scientist.
What I have not done is submit the model it for publication. Are you suggesting that I may not therefore share it? Or are you proposing that if I dare do so, that people such as you - will simply not take it seriously? I don't mind if you don't take it seriously. I'm hoping that there are younger minds out there who will be curious enough to test the experimental apparatus. And that others will take up the insights in the model and use them wherever they can. If, as I have proposed, broken symmetries are, in fact, the source of all energy, then indeed it would be possible to exceed the constraints of gravity, light speed, et al. It's all there in the model. It just needs to be understood.
In a previous post you made a list of allegations. I answered them on a point by point basis. Can you please extend that courtesy?
-
Show me just a few of these numbers - and how you arrive at them - and I'll start to take your work seriously.
If you insist on using a private, arcane language then you are onto a loser. Do you expect the rest of us to learn your private language? That's a lot to ask, you realise?
I hope that "younger minds" will always exist who are prepared to go through the rigorous process of learning all the existing stuff before they launch into their own private Science Worlds. Without them it will be just Babel and the dialogue of the deaf.
Communication is absolutely essential and that involves a common language for getting ideas across - i.e. mathematics.
Without it there's a dead end.
Even a "conceptual Scientist" must be able to communicate what she has found or the effort is wasted.
The predictive properties of the model are impeccable.
And you expect me to take that on trust, do you?
In my opinion, you have insulated yourself from the rest of Science, by refusing to use Maths so that the theory need not be subjected to serious scrutiny.
As for your experiment, I no longer have ready access to the equipment and so I would need a very convincing reason to approach anyone who would allow me to use theirs (I couldn't convince them either, of course). The problem is that, although you have produced a lot of figures, the basic scenario and theory are not there so I would not be inclined to bother to duplicate it. The paper describing the experiment is, in fact, incomplete. It needs bookwork and theory and an actual reason for carrying it out. I'm afraid you will have to translate what you want to say into 'common language' if you want to take it further.
You 'could' have what we would call an anomaly or you could simply have an experimental fault which has been common to all your results. It may upset you that people are reluctant to get involved but what you don't seem to realise is that Science (as we know it) has an incredible degree of consistency, across different Labs, different times and different workers. Your effect would have been seen already. You have been very imprecise in defining the precision required for the operating parameters to obtain the effect . Without a much better reason, I have to doubt that your results imply anything new. I, and anyone else I know, would look, exhaustively, for the flaw / anomaly before daring to suggest a new phenomenon. You, by your own admission, do not appear to know enough about Electronics to find a flaw.
Perhaps an alternative approach would help to get your message across - learn some Maths if you really want to convince people.
-
If the photon comprises two zipons then the zipon would be half the size of the photon. It is proposed that velocity and mass have an inverse proportional relationship. So, if the photon moves at the speed of light (C) then the velocity of the zipon would be 2C. And as velocity and mass are inversely proportional so, if the mass of the photon were given as 1, (as a ratio) then the zipon would be 0.5. If the electron comprises 3 truants then its mass would be 0.5 x 3 = 1.5. And, if the proton comprises three electrons then, each electron would comprise 0.5 for the quark. 3 quarks having no volume is 0.5 x 3 = 1.5. Four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the second truant is 1.5 x 4 = 6. And four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the third truant is 6 x 4 = 24. The second and third truant only have two dimensions of volume as they manifest within a prescribed space, that merry-go-round referred to in the field description. Therefore, 3 second truants, having length and breadth is 6 x 6 x 3 = 108. 3 third truants having length and breadth is 24 x 24 x 3 = 1728. This gives a mass of 1837.5, minus 1.5 for the quarks that have neither volume or mass, giving a total of 1836. Some variation of this number is, no doubt, required to accommodate the spherical shape of the truants, but it’s complex – a 2 dimensional sphere.
This is copied from the field model.
-
This model requires a triplet structure - and the first second and third truants can be precisely equated to the quark, pion and gluon. The difference between my model and classical is that the proton itself would then be a composite of 3 electrons. Again. It's detailed in the field model. But it gives a simple conceptual structure of this that may be easier to grasp than classical representation.
I have never said that I do not know enough to find a flaw. What I have acknowledged is that those experts that have replicated the experiment have not been able to find the flaw.
Sophiecentaur - first you said -'show me a working model and I will believe you'. Then you said words to the effect, explain your reasoning before I can believe you. Now you say - go and learn math before I take this seriously. You know what. I don't believe you. You will never find the precise conditions to evaluate this model. And I suspect it is because you simply cannot understand it. Now you say that the theory is arcane? How many more insults can you throw at this? Why do you not answer the extraordinary parallels between the casimir effect, mass size ratios the correspondence with string theories? I know why. Because you simply cannot understand the model and nor can you admit it. So you knock it.
-
If you are 'true' to Science, then you should want me to be able to make it work and, you would want to give me the precise conditions to make it work. You would, I suspect, rather believe that I would avoid finding the 'winning combination'.
Those numbers in your last post mean nothing on their own, I'm afraid. Have you heard of Numerology? When you do actual measurements, you get non integer results. Things don't add up that way in practice. You get mass defects when you bolt particles together. It is statistics that give values like the charge and mass of an electron - and they are constantly being refined. You are assuming a lot if you say that you can state the volumes with integer values.
You say I would not 'understand' the model. There is nothing to understand. I could, perhaps, memorise it off by heart but that is a different matter. I could even, possibly, suss out what you are getting at in a bit more detail. But that wouldn't make the hypothesis correct.
If you could show, with numbers, how your model accounts for the Hydrogen lines then you might start to convince me that it could have some substance. That is the simplest atomic model and, as I said before, it was the first one to be solved. Surely your system could do that. Surely you want it to.
There's a challenge for you. Real Science deals with non integer quantities. Your 'Science' has to do the same. No question.
-
I am indeed true to science. Let me tell you the extent of this. I have a 'machine' that is able to dissipate more energy than it delivers. I showed this everywhere. I was then told that others may steal the idea and patent it. So I patented it and then allowed the patent to lapse. This was to ensure that prior publication would prevent ANYONE from calling for royalties, including myself. I want to progess this knowledge. And progressing it takes up huge chapters of my life - the time spent on this forum may be proof. The winning combination is in the experimental apparatus but MUCH, MUCH more so, in the actual field model.
Sophiecentaur - this is from the heart. If I was looking for fame, glory, or anything other than the interests of the 'furtherance of knowledge' - I would not be tediously advancing my credentials on this forum - with the utmost respect. I have never knocked on the doors of our media. Where the Pretoria News got that article I will never know. Nor will I know who posted it on the web. The only published article that I knew of was in the Sunday Times (SA) where I actively co-operated to draw the public's attention to the Quatum article. I have never tried to 'bluff' a prestige that I do not have. On the contrary I have always stressed my lack of qualification. This was in the hopes that others who are qualified can pick up on the insights and use them. I've mentioned it in this thread. I've also stressed it in the IET paper. I am only a layman. But I'm intensely logical and I have a flair for number relationships and patterns. But, thank God, I am an outsider to science. Had I been schooled in any conventional sense then I would never have 'found the flaw' because I would also then have been looking in the wrong place.
I'm editing this because I anticipate BenV and others objecting to my pointing at a 'flaw'. Here's the thing. Since the advent of quantum mechanics and all the explosive insights that this afforded there has not been any further progress in science. The only progress that has been breathtakingly evident is also in the wide range of the applications enabled as they were by our quantum giants. And yet there are many questions still out there.
Bear in mind that Pauli and Bohr actively discouraged 'conceptualising' the particle or the atom. Originally there was even objection to Feynman's diagrams. Well that to me was really challenging. Why not represent things conceptually? Why can an understanding of physics not be progressed from a more profound level. Einstein himself was unhappy with the quantum disciplines of aggregate evidence. And I've seen everywhere, even on this forum, the result of not having a conceptual understanding. Why knock it if it may also help? I have never disputed that the measurements of our scientists is wrong. On the contrary. They are a miracle all on their own.
But I have my own tools of logic. And they reach exactly the same conclusions of measured evidence and point to other things. I'm exhausted. This is written in my defense. I'll deal with your questions later.
-
No advance in Science since QM? What a statement.
-
Indeed. There have been NO fundamental revisions of quantum mechanics, only refinements. And Quantum mechanics cannot get to a unifying principle. So far, as written only our string theorists have been able to reconcile this.
Let me say it another way. Quantum mechanics has enabled a a technological revolution. It has not promoted a fundamental understanding. Don't blame me for this observation. It's shared by every academic I have ever spoken to and is referenced in many published papers.
-
Indeed. There have been NO fundamental revisions of quantum mechanics, only refinements. And Quantum mechanics cannot get to a unifying principle. So far, as written only our string theorists have been able to reconcile this.
Let me say it another way. Quantum mechanics has enabled a a technological revolution. It has not promoted a fundamental understanding. Don't blame me for this observation. It's shared by every academic I have ever spoken to and is referenced in many published papers.
As I read this discussion it reminds me of myself each time I finish my theory. For a period of time I feel it is perfect. Then the response from others is either negative or non-existant. In the meanwhile I look for alternatives. I always find better ideas.
There are too many ideas out there. I have tried to ignore others during all my many years of effort. There is so much to do just on my own ideas. How can anyones brain handle all the competing ideas?
"The trouble with physics" by Lee Smolin illustratesthe sad point that there are millions of physicists all struggling to come up with original and useful ideas.Who could compete with that? The greatest brains in the world are stuck with little more than string theory which Smolin has discounted after many years. So people waste their lives on untimately meaningless stuff.
Every time I patented something I thought was useful, it was an economic flop. There are so many people doing the same and only those with money sources can succeed.
I was in the Patent office in Washington around 1970 checking out my motion sensor when I heard two patent lawyers. One said:
"Most of these patents here are not worth the paper they are printed on"
In 1956 I started working for Con Edison in New York City when I was 17 1/2 years old. I moved to a rooming house next to Gramacy park. After work I went to Union Square park for the discussions. Now we have the Internet for discussions. Years ago it was public parks.
One man brought his talking coconut in a small case to the park everyday. He would tell everyone what his coconut said the night before. The people would argue that the coconut could not talk. He would argue that it only talks to him.
After many months I moved to Brooklyn and no longer heard the talking coconut discussions.
As hard as things are, it is important to look at the alternatives to every theory.
I asked a wise old Rabbi how to find truth. He said:
"Deny everything until you can no longer deny it"
Well after I finish a work, I start to deny it. This causes part or all of the work to disintegrate. Therefore each person must first deny his own theory before he can feel secure that others would believe it.
-
Hi JerryGG38 - nice to see you on this thread. I like your old rabbi's advice to just keep denying. I've been headbutting and it's getting boring. Nice to be reminded not to take oneself too seriously.
I agree. There's way to many ideas out there. But how fascinating. I've just seen Photonic theory. Where did that come from? It must have been sleeping lower down in the list. And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production? I've got plenty to keep me busy. Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations. I might have to ask you to define them for me.
I'd love to know what you think of the latter. I can't get my mind around a neutral particle like a photon creating a gravitational field. But I'm still wrestling with it.
I wish I could see an old list of 'theories' - there must be some gems.
-
I agree. There's way to many ideas out there. But how fascinating. I've just seen Photonic theory. Where did that come from? It must have been sleeping lower down in the list. And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production? I've got plenty to keep me busy. Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations. I might have to ask you to define them for me.
The two papers you reference share very similar concepts. One of the main concepts is the size of the electron. We both see this size as having a circumference equal to the wavelength of a photon of the same mass equivalence.
I've studied many alternative theories; and you are right, there are lots of real gems. Many are similar to the device you propose. One seeks to charge an inductor, then break the circuit and capture the back EMF generated by the field collapse of the inductor. This looks like what you're doing.
Then there are many over-unity claims using AC motors in tuned circuits. These can be very efficient, as in our newer air conditioners, but none are really over-unity.
-
Hi Vern. I've seen your profile and you're also an electrical engineer. How do you explain current flow?
I've just seen your thread - and am fascinated. But I cannot see why it is relevant to a unifying theory. Can I impose on you to explain this?
Regarding the experiment - I can only ask anyone interested to test it for themselves. Or dismiss it. But don't please presume it's wrong until you've established it experimentally. Sophiecentaur seems to think that he must first be overwhelmingly convinced from the argument to justify the phenomenon. Perhaps he's right. But my argument appears to be too obtuse - which I find extraordinary. I use simple language and simple logic. I think it's the simplicity that everyone find's offensive. If collapsing fields in the inductor did not generate a second cycle of electric current then our inductive laws are wrong.
It strikes me that you guys have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain away the benefit of this. Phase lag and wasteage aside, the measurable gain is extraordinary and unequivocal.
-
Hi Vern. I've seen your profile and you're also an electrical engineer. How do you explain current flow?
I've just seen your thread - and am fascinated. But I cannot see why it is relevant to a unifying theory. Can I impose on you to explain this?
I'm not an electrical engineer; those guys work the power grid; I'm an electronics engineer; we play with computer circuitry and such. Current flow is pretty well established as the movement of electrons. We suspect this because we can physically move electrons and notice that they produce all the effects we see around a wire that is carrying electric current.
A unification theory shows how all four forces of nature can be the same thing. My speculation is that all the forces are electromagnetic. (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) The other thread you referenced contains the same speculation. It seems that we independently came up with the same equation for electron size.
It strikes me that you guys have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain away the benefit of this. Phase lag and wasteage aside, the measurable gain is extraordinary and unequivocal.
Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.
-
Still puzzled. I thought the mass/size of an electron was known? Is it variable within a field? In other words is it able to express a range of frequencies like the photon?
Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.
Our scientific history speaks to this kind of certainty.
Sorry - this is the third modification of this post. If the fundamental force is electromagnetic then, presumably all is constrained to light speed? How then do you accommodate the non-locality paradoxes?
-
Still puzzled. I thought the mass/size of an electron was known? Is it variable within a field? In other words is it able to express a range of frequencies like the photon?
The mass of the electron is known to a high precision, however all attempts to measure its size have found nothing. The mass and size are constants. Mainstream physics holds that the electron is a point from which charge emanates. We suggest that charge emanates from a shell equal in circumference to the wave length of equivalent energy.
Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.
Our scientific history speaks to this kind of certainty.
Yes; I know of many accounts.
Sorry - this is the third modification of this post. If the fundamental force is electromagnetic then, presumably all is constrained to light speed? How then do you accommodate the non-locality paradoxes?
Yes; all is constrained to light speed, since in our scheme, everything is made of light. Your scheme has everything made of a composite of sub-particles moving at twice the speed of light. Non-locality entanglements suggest infinite speed.
I am puzzled by non-locality entanglements just as are most physicists.
-
I agree. There's way to many ideas out there. But how fascinating. I've just seen Photonic theory. Where did that come from? It must have been sleeping lower down in the list. And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production? I've got plenty to keep me busy. Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations. I might have to ask you to define them for me.
The two papers you reference share very similar concepts. One of the main concepts is the size of the electron. We both see this size as having a circumference equal to the wavelength of a photon of the same mass equivalence.
I've studied many alternative theories; and you are right, there are lots of real gems. Many are similar to the device you propose. One seeks to charge an inductor, then break the circuit and capture the back EMF generated by the field collapse of the inductor. This looks like what you're doing.
Then there are many over-unity claims using AC motors in tuned circuits. These can be very efficient, as in our newer air conditioners, but none are really over-unity.
When I think of tuned circuits producing huge amounts of energy, I must return to Con Edison. They had problems with a huge welding company. The welder would spike the transmission lines so terribly that the generators would cause everyone to suffer.
How to solve the problem? Well they used a series capacitance circuit. If you start with 13,000 volts and you make a mistake in the design you surely will get over unity. You could get a million volt resonant spike.
Is that over unity? Surly from a voltage viewpoint it is. From an energy viewpoint, resonant circuits may appear to be over unity some of the time. especially if that one million volt pulse comes into your building. Everyone would be cooked.
Some people used to have fun with the telephone company long ago. They would produce over-unity circuits and destroy phone switchboards.
These circuits are not perpetual motion. They exist and can be scarry or fun. The Con Edision circuits were well designed. They did not resonate. No one died. However the series street lighting circuits did kill many linemen. The problem is that once a simple several thousand volt series circuit becomes broken, the transformer rises to extremely high voltages. A poor lineman would pick up the wire and it would kill him. Thus another type of over unity circuit is very destructive.
-
Yes; any switched inductive circuit produces over-unity voltage. I gleaned from witsend that over-unity power was the claim. The circuit reminds me of similar ones that charge an inductor or capacitor, then switch off the circuit and discharge the inductor or capacitor through a load. The assumption was that the discharge current was free, which is not the case.
-
Yes; any switched inductive circuit produces over-unity voltage. I gleaned from witsend that over-unity power was the claim. The circuit reminds me of similar ones that charge an inductor or capacitor, then switch off the circuit and discharge the inductor or capacitor through a load. The assumption was that the discharge current was free, which is not the case.
It seemed to me that many people might confuse over unity voltage with over energy. To me the only source of overenergy is the stored energy of the atoms such as radioactive or the stored energy of the proton.
In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.
I used to like to build relay energy sources from a charged capacitor. With no apparent power the relay would work. However the energy was built up prior to the action.
-
In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.
I'm surprised that you keep quarks as a part of matter since your dot wave doesn't resemble the standard model photon. What is your concept of a photon?
-
In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.
I'm surprised that you keep quarks as a part of matter since your dot wave doesn't resemble the standard model photon. What is your concept of a photon?
As my theory went out to 130 universities a few months ago, I got about 10 responses. As I was getting the responses, I started to read several books on quarks. I also found Planks equations on the internet.
At the same time I found that my concept of a cloud of dot waves was not satisfactory.
Planks equations were very interesting. I came to accept the Plank radius of 1.616252E-35 as the min radius in the universe. Instead of my own minimum, I used Planks.
Thye net result of my latest studies and the comments from the Professors was that I came to accept the quarks as true. Then I realized that mass is a gyroscopic action.
My whole theory changed. Now let us look at a photon. It is a planar device. It oscillates from a particular radius to the Plank radius. At the same time it spins.
What happens if we spin a bipolar electric field?
A force is developed in the perpendicular direction. Thus the photon has a force perpendicular to its spin.
F = ma
The mass parallel to the plane is finite. The mass perpendicular to the plane is zero. Therefore the acceleration of a photon is infiniite.
The plane spinning wave goes from zero velocity to the limiting velocity with infinite acceleration because it has no mass opposing the motion.The limiting velocity is light speed.
Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.
-
Jerry, I'm getting back to this point from your thread, only because it's relevant to this topic.
The mass of the photon is zero. So. If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any velocity at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.
If however, E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum then one can say that the energy of the photon, albeit without any mass - is indeed light speed. But that equation is actually only saying that if it hasn't got mass then just check out its velocity and use that. What, for instance, if a theoretical particle had a negative mass quotient and a velocity of twice the speed of light? Surely it's energy would still equate to its momentum? Therefore,assuming it is half the mass of a photon, then it's energy quotient would be 2c? So why any constraint to light speed unless there's also some theoretical constraint to something having less mass than a photon? And if it is valid to conceptualise t- then it is also valid to conceptualise m-.
The problem with 'non-locality' is simple. Paired particles are seen to adjust their spin simultaneously. But the interesting thing is this. If you influence the spin of the one particle of a pair the other automatically adjusts its spin to compensate. This is known to exceed light speed and has been tested at separation distances of 11 kilometers. It's an uncomfortable truth that light speed has been breached. So why the insistance on any constraints. I can see that light speed is the limit of any particles with mass. I do not see why it should apply to particles that have no mass. The question is, obviously, that if such particles exist they would be tachyons and how then would one ever detect them? We need light to measure light. We have no faster gauge. If something therefore exceeded the speed of light and had less mass than a photon - then how does one actually prove the existence of such a particle? It would forever be nothing more than a theoretical supposition.
-
Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.
But we have studied photons relentlessly. Some are spin polarized so that they spin around an axis in the direction of their travel. This spin carries angular momentum that is conserved and conveyed to any impacted particle. Experiments testing this are very well documented. Some photons are not spin polarized and move through space with little or no spin.
-
The problem with 'non-locality' is simple. Paired particles are seen to adjust their spin simultaneously.
This is not quite true. It comes from the Quantum Mechanical concept of superposition which states that the spin state of the paired particles are both up and down simultaneously until one is observed. Then both particles collapse into either up or down spin state. It is not a problem if you accept the premise that the particles acquired their spin state when they were created. There is no proof that the later is not the case. This is why it is not possible to use superposition as a communication tool.
This is yet another case where reality does not agree with QM theory; therefore reality is wrong. [:)]
-
Sophiecentaur, I've answered your question as to whether or not I'm true to science. Your answer - 'No advance in science since QM? What a statement.' is based on what? I never said that. Not even close. Yet again. Do you read what I've written or do you imagine what I've written? To put the question in gentler terms, is it a deliberate or unintended distortion of the truth? Do you rely on these 'distortions' to invent grounds for criticism? Or, to put it another way, is it your nature to criticise and when you can't find an excuse your own subconsious inventiveness kicks in? I'm really interested. You see I've seen all kinds of bluster. But you've taken it to new dimensions. Bluster a la Sophiecentaur. Here's the recipe. Take the object of a communication - reverse it - then attack it. Extraordinary.
But indeed, if you are equal to the task I would love you to make it work. Put the apparatus together, make sure you've got a really good switch to control those duty cycles and sweep through the frequency range. When it first goes into resonance then compare DC and ACrms voltage measurements. If the former is less than the latter then compare it to my figures. If it's out it wont be too far out, provided always that the inductance on the resistor approximates the value in the test. It can be greater. The more inductance the better. I've no idea if there's an upper limit. Then check the actual temperature rise and you'll find that the v squared over r analysis is out by some small factor. That's attributed to losses in the system and phase lag. When you've done this, then. Get some colleagues to check the numbers, and then publish, or make a battery recharger cum camp site light or whatever application you can think of and then sell it. Whatever you want. If you can persuade someone to manufacture a really robust MOSFET you could also apply it to your average household geyser. Maybe you could make up the difference still needed to pay for you yacht. And it wouldn't need to take you away from your part-time teaching post. Do it as a hobby.
The numbers in my last post explain the difference in 'SIZE' between the electron and the proton - the proton being precisely 1836 times greater than the electron. Actually not quite. It's a small fraction greater than this. I allow for that fraction in the proposal that the second and third truant are two dimensional spheres.
There is a lot to understand in the model. Yet its also so simple. I look to broken symmetry in magnetic fields as the source of ALL energy.
I go to some considerable lengths to show how the model accounts for hydrogen lines. It is explained at length as the fusion between three electrons within a flux field some singularity that disturbs the otherwise orderly arrangement of magnetic strings. The flux separates from the field at that moment when these three electrons fuse. It results in the ejection of a single electron, those three truants that are within the boundary constraints of the field. And the at that same instant is the fusion of the two truants and the one binding truant x 3 to form the proton. Then also - for symmetry, is the incorporation to that structure of at least 1836 zipons that then orbit the atom. It becomes a closed system. The electron, expelled from the proton is trapped in the orbiting field of zipons which become the atom's energy levels. So. I have proposed that these 'energy levels' are, in fact, orbiting fields of zipons. I also account for the creation of more complex atoms resulting from further fusion where the zipons are extracted from this field or 'closed system'. In other words in the periodic table the more complex the atom the less the number of zipons orbiting because they've been 'taken' from the initial quantum at that first singularity. I also allow for the creation of deuterium at that same singularity where the hydrogen atoms are formed. Possibly also tritium. This, I propose accounts for the non-linear formation of atoms in that table.
You know what my actual challenge is? To see if I can get you to take this seriously.
-
Vern - with respect - the actual proof of superluminal communication was established as the artificial influence on one particle that INSTANTANEOUSLY influenced the other in paired photons.
I am not referring here to the EPR Effect.
I would be glad if you or Jerry could answer the question regarding negative mass.
-
Vern - with respect - the actual proof of superluminal communication was established as the artificial influence on one particle that INSTANTANEOUSLY influenced the other in paired photons.
I am not referring here to the EPR Effect.
I would be glad if you or Jerry could answer the question regarding negative mass.
I must have missed the question regarding negative mass. IMHO it does not exist.
Here's a Wiki article on photon entanglement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_entanglement) It seems to indicate that communication via the process is not possible.
Instantaneous communication by means of quantum entanglement is actually impossible because neither side can manipulate the state of the entangled particles, they can only measure it (see No-communication theorem). This fact means that if you measure one particle you cannot infer anything meaningful about the observers measuring the other particle, except you know what state they will measure, or have already measured. Thus causality is preserved.
-
The mass of the photon is zero. So. If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any mass at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.
If however, E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum then one can say that the energy of the photon, albeit without any mass - is indeed light speed. But that equation is actually only saying that if it hasn't got mass then just check out its velocity and use that. What, for instance, if a theoretical particle had a negative mass quotient and a velocity of twice the speed of light? Surely it's energy would still equate to its momentum? Therefore,assuming it is half the mass of a photon, then it's energy quotient would be 2c? So why any constraint to light speed unless there's also some theoretical constraint to something having less mass than a photon? And if it is valid to conceptualise t- then it is also valid to conceptualise m-.
I've copied it again. I'm so pleased you're on line. Can you apply yourself to this? What does IMHO stand for?
-
IMHO; In My Humble Opinion.
I'm editing so the post will change; I suspect that t- does not exist just as m- does not exist.
My speculation is that the photon does not HAVE mass the photon IS mass. Mass is electromagnetic change. It is a fact that any place you have electromagnetic change in a defined location, it is massive.
-
Thanks Vern [:)]
Sorry I thought I was previewing - in fact I was posting. One day I'll find my way around this system.
I'm not questioning whether it exits or not. My question is to do with that equation. Does it preclude it's existence?
-
My question is to do with that equation. Does it preclude it's existence?
I suspect that equations can not preclude, or include any reality. They can only describe it. I can easily make an equation that describes multiple dimensions, and I can add another dimension to it simply by inserting a comma and a number. The equation might have nothing to do with reality.
Here's a post by lightarrow describing photonic mass. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18161.25)
A couple of photons not travelling in the same direction has mass, because you can find a reference frame where the total momentum of the system is 0:
E2 = (Mc2)2 + (cP)2
E = energy of the two photons' system = E1 + E2 = 2E1, with two equal photons, where E1 is a single photon's energy (energy is additive).
M = mass of the two photons' system.
P = momentum of the two photons' system = P1 + P2 where P1 and P2 are the momenta of the photon 1 and 2, respectively.
A single photon's momentum is, in modulus: |P1| = |P2| = E1/c.
So, if the two photons are not travelling in the same direction:
|P| = |P1 + P2| < 2|P1| = 2E1/c
so
P2 = |P|2 < 4E12/c2 → -P2 > -4E12/c2
(Mc2)2 = E2 - (cP)2 = (2E1)2 - c2P2 > 4E12 - c24E12/c2 = 0
so
(Mc2)2 > 0
that is:
M > 0.
So it's light which has mass when confined in a fixed space.
-
I understood that the E-mc squared somehow precluded anything exceeding light speeds. The second equation modified this first to accommodate photons? Are you saying that there is nothing, in fact, to preclude something exceeding light speed? I'm holding my breath here for this answer.
-
Jerry, I'm getting back to this point from your thread, only because it's relevant to this topic.
The mass of the photon is zero. So. If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any mass at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.
GG:
I haven't done much work on the photons. My main effort is the dot theory, gravity, the time of the universe since big bang, the red shift.
I only did the proton & neutron recently. In doing that it appeared to me that mass consists of three planes which would be photonic.
Therefore I do not agree that a photon has zero mass.If you could spin it around a sphere like an electron it would have mass. The regular photon traveling at light speed has mass perpendicular to the direction of travel. However since the photon is traveling at light speed, the mass per unit distance is very small.
A proton has a huge mass per unit distance because it is stationary. In a split second the photon mass is distributed over 186,000 miles. In effect it appears like zero but photons are attracted to the stars. Yet the calculation whould have to take account of the mass per unit distance rather than a point mass.
-
JerryGG38 - you've missed the point. I'm trying to find out what principle in physics precludes superluminal speed. Is is classical - or is it just a widely held opinion?
-
Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.
But we have studied photons relentlessly. Some are spin polarized so that they spin around an axis in the direction of their travel. This spin carries angular momentum that is conserved and conveyed to any impacted particle. Experiments testing this are very well documented. Some photons are not spin polarized and move through space with little or no spin.
GG: I haven't done much thinking on the photon as related to my latest theories. Most of my prior knowledge was that photons spin. Why they have a spin of 1 rather than 1/2 is a question.
From your knowledge do you have photons with spins of 1/2?
If the spin is 1 or 0, then to me we have a dual photon with the positive and negative dot-waves spinning in the same or opposite directions. Therefore they can sum up or cancel spins.
However I have no information at the moment to study.
-
Thanks Jerry - don't worry. Maybe Vern can answer this.
-
JerryGG38 - you've missed the point. I'm trying to find out what principle in physics precludes superluminal speed. Is is classical - or is it just a widely held opinion?
As far as I am concerned I believe in the multi-lightspeed universe. Therefore I have coexisting universes from light speed zero up to light speed infinity. We live on a spherical surface at out light speed. As we move toward a common center the light speed is less. As we move outward the light speed moves upward toward infinity.
As far as our light speed is concerned, there are two different solutions to the red shift from the far stars. One solution is that the light speed is constantly changing.
Therefore there is no reason to believe that we do not interact with higher light speed photons and particles. All that we can say is that most of the stuff we interact with is at our light speed.
-
I understood that the E-mc squared somehow precluded anything exceeding light speeds. The second equation modified this first to accommodate photons? Are you saying that there is nothing, in fact, to preclude something exceeding light speed? I'm holding my breath here for this answer.
According to my speculation, mass can't exceed the speed of light because it is made of light. [:)] E = mc2 implies that the energy required to accelerate matter to light speed would be infinite. Since the equation seems to work for everything else, we find it useful.
I think that according to your speculation, matter should be limited to twice light speed.
BTW, E=mc2 alone doesn't preclude matter from light speed. It is the Lorentz transformations that preclude it, and the transformations seem to work for everything else as well.
-
Many, many thanks Vern. I'm just not sure how you got to 2c but I love it.
-
If the spin is 1 or 0, then to me we have a dual photon with the positive and negative dot-waves spinning in the same or opposite directions. Therefore they can sum up or cancel spins.
I think photon spin is taken as one to satisfy symmetry rules. Its spin is related to its polarization, but is different than a spin polarized photon. Spin polarization of a photon comes from the spin of its source, and it is conserved. Electron spin is measured. It shows that there are two states of an electron. This is how they get the spin 1/2. It is as if there are two sub particles spinning about a common axis at the speed of light.
Here is a physicist (http://www.ag-physics.de/) who describes an electron as two sub particles spinning at the speed of light.
-
Here is a physicist who describes an electron as two sub particles spinning at the speed of light. Vern
Not sure why the emphasis or the relevance? Is'nt widely understood that an electron moves at light speed in its orbit around the nucleus? And, equally, there are many many proposals that the electron is a composite. Some say doublet - others triplet. But it's not a unique concept surely?
I sort of understood that the whole wave/particle duality was based on the irreconcilability of knowing all states of any particle at any one time?
-
Sorry Jerry, I missed your post. Well - from what you and Vern say, 2c may be acceptable. Why then is it not reasonable to propose that a magnetic field comprises these zipons? The only thing that mitigates against is that they're not visible. But actually, I think Sophicentaur may have inadvertently helped. You see - my model says that energy levels comprise these zipons. And energy levels are distinctly evident.
Then - back to the casimir effect. If these little numbers in fact 'bind' amalgams - they would not be evident as their charge is neutral - their fields are neutral - and they would respond to other similar fields as any one magnet would respond to another. And the casimir effect has definitely been proven but on a really small scale.
Come on Vern. You've got an encylcopaedical knowledge of these things. Help me here.
-
Sorry I should have referenced the fact that I'm proposing that these fields are extraneous to the atom. They are NOT the atom's energy levels. They're introduced when amalgams form - however and wherever.
-
Not sure why the emphasis or the relevance? Is'nt widely understood that an electron moves at light speed in its orbit around the nucleus? And, equally, there are many many proposals that the electron is a composite. Some say doublet - others triplet. But it's not a unique concept surely?
The emphasis is a link. I haven't seen the triplet proposal. It is widely understood that an electron does not move at light speed. And the orbit hypothesis of the electron going around a nucleus is going out of favour. Now we think of an electron probability cloud in which an electron may be found. I suspect though that the position is more determinate.
Edit: Maybe it would be more clear if I said that contrary to popular belief, I suspect that the electron's position is more determinate.
-
A positron? How on earth is a positron stable? Is it proposed to explain the fact that it would then not 'nose-dive' to the proton? Golly Vern. The cloud image I know. As I understand it - it's the eternal expression between particle and wave. Both evident but never together.
But my question? Please answer it. I'm on bended knees here at the back end of Africa.
By the way - I'm not married to an electron's light speed. I don't need it. But am entirely baffled at the thought of the positron in those energy levels.
-
The word was position. I'll add the answer to your question after a little research.
-
Sorry [:X]
Edit (I'm slowly learning this protocol) Regarding your proposal that the electron's POSITION is more determinate - I'd love to know what you mean. But - on second thought - let it wait until you've worked out the possibility of my little zipons causing that casimir effect.
-
Then - back to the casimir effect. If these little numbers in fact 'bind' amalgams - they would not be evident as their charge is neutral - their fields are neutral - and they would respond to other similar fields as any one magnet would respond to another. And the casimir effect has definitely been proven but on a really small scale.
Well; in a zippon universe that might work. [:)]
-
Well. Let's suppose we've got such. I'm feeling ridiculously happy. It's intoxicating to think that maybe, just maybe - we've got that 10 dimensional binary system.
Vern. You're a star.
Edit ... [:D] [:D] [:D] [;D] [;D] [;D]
-
Why is it that you need 10 dimensions? Why not just use the three spacial and one time dimension?
-
Vern - I have to go out. I can't answer this as much as I'd like to. I'll get back to you on this. It's huge. Can you plough through my model? Or is it too obtuse?
But I'll get back to you. Our time's are plus/minus 7 hours I think. Whatever. I'll get back to you, but probably will only manage it tomorrow evening. I am so so grateful for your help.
By the way the link was re-instated after I re-instated. Not too far down this post. I haven't got time to look it up and post it here.
-
Vern, you know what - I think this thread has become way too big and it's getting off topic. And no-one's really interested in that circuit. That's why I introduced it. I'd quite like to start another to deal with the concepts in the model.
For anyone who still reads this thread - here's the thing. Read the paper. It's the pdf file at the top of that blog. It really does work. The history - as a reminder - is that the IET wont forward this paper for review. Probably because it's way too amateurish. Whatever. I sort of hoped that reviewers would help me get it into shape to get it published. Anyway. Try it out. It costs nothing. It needs to be disproved and I can't get it to an academic forum. Well I can - but not through the respectable medium of journal publication. And until then the academics wont be associated.
It's based on an idea that current flow is really just magnetic fields that use circuit components to adjust their spin or charge. If you can get it onto applications - feel free. No need to apply for patent rights. And with energy being so big - it should at least merit a trial test.
Just know - for those electrical engineers - the waveform is NOT periodic. But if you prefer to measure with periodic waveforms - the same benefit using inductors in series with loads. over unity ranges between 80 to 600% measured - but nowhere near as extraordinary as using a really inductive resistor by itself. That benefit we've measured at 16 COP. Then also you don't need that 555 switch. You can use a functions generator.
sorry - I forgot to post the link
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
edit - Just as a reminder - if you haven't waded through this thread - sweep the frequency range until it starts oscillating. That's usually its optimum frequency. You'll need a fairly stable switch to manage those duty cycles. And the best way to check the benefit quickly is to use a dual function oscilloscope. I used a 123 Fluke scopemeter. It handles high frequency measurement. But the real advantage is that it displays DC and AC rms voltage. Measure across the load and display both functions. When DC is lower than ACrms you'll be at roughly the right point. The thinking is that DC is a fair measure of the energy delivered by the battery - because it's not discharging during the 'off' period of the duty cycle. So that below zero spike goes back to the battery. The energy dissipated = the product of both cycles - above and below zero, less small losses associated with phase shift and heat losses at sundry circuit components. Then fine tune those measurements. We used carbon shunts and checked wattage dissipated against temperature rise - platinum based temperature probes linked to digital displays.
edit - sorry yet again. If you can find an application - there are no patent restrictions. Just go for it.
edit - promise it'll be the last. Any academics reading this - it needs publication. Get your students to test and publish. Feel free.
-
So it oscillates and you use a chopper but it's not periodic?
What does that mean?
-
Hi Socphiecentaur. By not being periodic I mean that the one waveform is not the same as the next. You need to average your results. Purists don't like to do this. So - to make it periodic - use a transformer in series. Less efficient but a steady repeatable waveform.
cant resist asking. Are you going to test this?
-
Vern, you know what - I think this thread has become way too big and it's getting off topic. And no-one's really interested in that circuit. That's why I introduced it. I'd quite like to start another to deal with the concepts in the model.
It might be interesting to know what is the link between the theory about Zipons and the circuit.
-
Hi Socphiecentaur. By not being periodic I mean that the one waveform is not the same as the next. You need to average your results. Purists don't like to do this. So - to make it periodic - use a transformer in series. Less efficient but a steady repeatable waveform.
cant resist asking. Are you going to test this?
Where is this circuit described? I don't see how to find it.
The other question I have is that you say you must average the results.
That may be a problem because in electrical theory you have to take the root mean square of all the different components and not the average.
For example if one component has an average value of 100 and the other 1, the sum of the average components would be 101.
However the true answer to the energy would be
(100^2 + 1^2)^0.5 = 1.00005
For this simple example not using the root mean square would imply a large effect for the 1 component while using the root mean square basically eliminates the 1 component.
I do not know if this is a problem with your circuit because I have not seen the circuit.
-
Sophiecentaur. The circuit is described in the paper, the pdf file that you access at the top of my blog. I thought you'd read this. The experiment is DETAILED in full.
Oh God. I don't want to do this. Just please, at least, read that paper. I think you'll see I've got a fair grasp of classical measurement requirements.
-
In series with what? A transformer is a four terminal device.
What determines the frequency of this, non-periodic oscillation? Is it the switch circuit?
The fluke 123 may give you RMS current but it assumes constant voltage.
The only way to be anything like sure of the actual energy delivered by the battery is to look at total discharge time and, to be sure that nothing special is happening in the battery, you would need to do it over many charge / discharge cycles. The battery could well be acting as a primary cell, in part. The energy coming from other than the recharging process.
What is "a really inductive resistor". What was its inductance? 10 or a few nH? It will have had an actual value - measurable or even calculable, roughly.
I wonder why you used carbon resistors. They are not stable or close tolerance - unlike metal film resistors. We never used carbon resistors after about 1970, in the Research Lab where I worked.
-
Sophiecentaur. The circuit is described in the paper, the pdf file that you access at the top of my blog. I thought you'd read this. The experiment is DETAILED in full.
Oh God. I don't want to do this. Just please, at least, read that paper. I think you'll see I've got a fair grasp of classical measurement requirements.
I am missing something. I do not see any PDF file listed on the starting paragraph.
-
You press the 'here' button. It opens up the paper.
-
You press the 'here' button. It opens up the paper.
Well thank you, you gave me my morning laugh. It is hysterical!!!!
My KIA air conditioning was fixed last week by the dealer for free. They give 60,000 mile warranty. I only have 44,000 miles. My daughter was driving it and said the lights are no longer on when you drive. They work if you turn the switch. But normally they go on in the daytime.
I called the dealer and he told me that there was an on/off switch that could change them. He said it was in the manual. I thought a connect was pulled loose but he insisted the AC was on a different side.
I studied the manual and looked all over for the switch. I did notice that the fog lights no longer are on. So now I have an appointment with him at 2 pm.
So I do not have a manual for this website. Please explain how to find the "here button". I am not that computer literate.
Perhaps my dealer can help me.
Anyway I cannot stop laughing.
-
Open the blog. You'll see the following - in yellow- 'Counter electromotive force enables...'
Directly under that 'in white' it says "PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE FROM 'HERE' The here button is in lilac. Put your cursor on that button and left click.
Glad to have amused you.
-
Open the blog. You'll see the following - in yellow- 'Counter electromotive force enables...'
Directly under that 'in white' it says "PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE FROM 'HERE' (http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/) The here button is in lilac. Put your cursor on that button and left click.
Glad to have amused you especially if it gets you out of attack mode.
jerrygg38: I modified the witsend quote and inserted a link the Blog.
-
Thanks Vern. I would not have known how to do it.
-
Jerrygg38 - let me add to the general merriment. I thought that I was talking to Sophiecentaur. But I've got a shrewd idea he has also not read the paper. I'd love to hear your opinion on it.
-
Sophiecentaur - I assume you've read the paper. Can you please confirm this?
You can use single wound, double wound, any. We used hefy single wound transformers but it's not necessary. The idea is to put the transformer in series with the load and before the switch. The diode is then in parallel to both the inductor and the load resistor.
Yes, the switch determines the rate of oscillation.
I cannot understand what you mean by the Fluke 'assuming a constant voltage'.
We've done those tedious tests related to battery draw downs. I've actually explained it to you in this thread. Have you forgotten or did you read it?
The level of inductance of the resistor is explained in the paper.
Please read the paper and you'll see that the carbon resistors are used to determine the battery 'draw down' rate.
-
Open the blog. You'll see the following - in yellow- 'Counter electromotive force enables...'
Directly under that 'in white' it says "PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE PDF FILE FROM 'HERE' (http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/) The here button is in lilac. Put your cursor on that button and left click.
Glad to have amused you especially if it gets you out of attack mode.
jerrygg38: I modified the witsend quote and inserted a link the Blog.
I found the blog. I quickly went through it and it says the circuit is in the appendix.
How do you find the appendix link?????? I could not find it.
-
jerrygg38: I modified the witsend quote and inserted a link the Blog.
[/quote]
I found the blog. I quickly went through it and it says the circuit is in the appendix.
How do you find the appendix link?????? I could not find it.
[/quote]
PS: I do not know if this is applicable but in the past and probably today, you can get free power from the power company with a diode. The watthower meter does not respond to DC currents.
So if the measuring device requires an AC signal in voltage and current, it will not read DC components.
-
Jerrygg38 - I'm emailing you a copy of that paper. Watch out for it.
-
Jerrygg38 - I'm emailing you a copy of that paper. Watch out for it.
I will look for it. Hopefully it will come before I go to the dealer in one hour. Then I can start to study it while I wait for the car.
-
Hi Jerry, you should have got it. I sent it some time back.
Edit - just realised I sent it to the wrong address. Sorry Jerry and apologies Sophiecentaur.
-
Hi Jerry, you should have got it. I sent it some time back.
Edit - just realised I sent it to the wrong address. Sorry Jerry and apologies Sophiecentaur.
I just rechecked my email address and it is correct. I will look again.
-
Hi Jerry, you should have got it. I sent it some time back.
Edit - just realised I sent it to the wrong address. Sorry Jerry and apologies Sophiecentaur.
I just rechecked my email address and it is correct. I will look again.
I got it and printed it out. Now I will study it at the car dealer.
The circuit is basically familiar to me with variations. I used to enjoy making all sorts of switching circuits at work and at home. I haven't built one in 20 years but it brings back memories.
-
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance, That principle is Contempt Prior To Investigation." Herbert Spencer.
I took the liberty of copying this from Adrew Fletcher's thread on MS. It's for your benefit Sophiecentaur.
-
ignorance would be contempt after investigation, if there was anything to the theory that is
-
To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right.
-- Robert L. Parks
-
AKF is another contributor who has found what may be an interesting phenomenon and has tried to explain it with a brand new but incomplete scientific hypothesis. Interesting that witsend has picked up on his posts.
I think the Galileo quote really fits here. Nice one Rosy.
witsend - did you have some values for your inductances and could you explain how to fit a four terminal transformer "in series"?
-
... if there was anything to the theory that is
Not sure what you mean by this? I don't have a theory. At best a badly articulated model. But if I was scared of contempt I would not still be at this forum.
-
Sophiecentaur and Rosy, if you feel that it's inappropriate to discuss the circuit on this forum - then say so. I'll be glad to stop posting.
I believe the level of inductance on the circuit's resistor is described in the paper that I inadvertently sent you Sophiecentaur. And regarding the transformer. Why on earth do I need four terminals to the transformer? We use single wound. I've written it. But if you want to vary it - feel free. My reference to double wound inductors is just to encourage any testers to vary the circuit if they so wish.
-
witsend: you should call a single wound device a coil or solenoid; it wouldn't be a transformer of the kind we think about in electronics.
-
AKF is another contributor who has found what may be an interesting phenomenon and has tried to explain it with a brand new but incomplete scientific hypothesis.
How in heaven's name would I have 'found' an interesting phenomenon? I knew nothing about electricity. I went to some considerable lengths to test my idea. I've told you the history. But I think, at long last, that I see where your objections are coming from. You think I'm fraudulently misrepresenting this history to gain some prestige for the idea. You've no idea what a backhanded compliment that is. That also means that if the idea came before the experiment - then the idea may have validity. What fun. My friends know what came first. So do those academics I approached. It was much more than Prof Claymans and Violie. It was also Professor Zingu. How nice is that. Thank you Sophiecentaur. It's made my day.
-
witsend: you should call a single wound device a coil or solenoid; it wouldn't be a transformer of the kind we think about in electronics.
Thanks Vern. But this ignorance surely speaks to my lack of knowledge. I'm always glad to stress this.
Edit - I thought solenoids were small? Have used only one half of double wound inductor? When does it become a transformer - when there's more than one winding? Or just when you use more than one winding? We also used an inductor with about 6 windings just to vary inductance. Whatever, apologies to any readers if this was wrong - or confusing? Whatever. The point being - the counter electromotive force definitely increases with more inductance - if you choose to test these as well.
-
witsend: you should call a single wound device a coil or solenoid; it wouldn't be a transformer of the kind we think about in electronics.
Vern did you get to look at the circuit? It is just a simple R/L switching circuit, electricity 101. It is something I learned in Brooklyn Tech High School in the electrical course.
It is hard to understand why so many people signed onto it. Did you read the report?
The authors calculated 1.22 Mega joules at the load and only 67.6 at the battery. If the device was 100 percent efficient, it should have been calculated at 61.1 kilojoules at the battery. Therefore the efficiency of this circuit is
efficiency = 91.1 percent
Therefore the Mosfet and the driver andthe series resistor is losing 8.9 percent.
I will study the circuit more but they did not use
Power = V^2 / R
Instead they used voltage times average current. This is not very good for a transient circuit which produces mostly square waves. The average power dissipated in the load is one half.
Variations of this circuit goes back to Alexander Graham Bell. It was studied at the dawn of electrical theory by the greatest minds.
Vern have you done any circuit design over your career? Anyway you are excellent with knowledge of physics.
Dear Witsend: I will continue to study it. I think the pictures in the blog are fantastic. Your theory on twice light speed sounds interesting.
However this simple 200 year old electrical circuit has not changed from the time of simple switches such as telephone relays to the mosfets of 20 years ago.
It is difficult to understand how so many people could sign on to approval of such things. Sometimes I worked for circuit analysis at Sperry Gyro when I was between assignments. We had to study such circuits and insure that under temperature or over time the circuit would still work well. It was very important that the mosfets had to shut off perfectly.
On the side issue. I got to the dealer and he said the kia lights do not go on in the daytime unless you leave the light switch on. They will go off automatically. I thought they always was on. Anyway somehow I completely messed up. My daughter did too. But it is hard for me to believe.
-
Vern did you get to look at the circuit? It is just a simple R/L switching circuit, electricity 101. It is something I learned in Brooklyn Tech High School in the electrical course.
Yes; and I studied the Zipons and Truants. I thought they were interesting. I think witsend said there was nothing special about the circuit.
Vern have you done any circuit design over your career? Anyway you are excellent with knowledge of physics.
Yes; I've designed all kinds of electronics and logic circuits; mostly test equipment; my training was in nuclear instrumentation.
-
You say you have explained the "draw down" but how many cycles did you explore?
I ask again - how can you connect something with Four wires in "series" with anything?
Do you realise that INDUCTANCE is a quantity - it has units of H (Henries). If you describe something as "really inductive", what inductance did it have. Your "extensive" measurements may not have been as extensive as you say.
Yes I read the circuit paper from cover to cover and noticed you did lots and lots of some measurements and not any of others (or you don't quote them). Frequencies - the ringing of the switching waveform is also relevant.
You are asking people to get involved with something that is only half fledged. When this is pointed out, you just get shirty. Can you really be so arrogant as to interpret every awkward question as "arthritis of the brain"?
I advise that you take jerrgg38's comments on board - or does he have arthritis too~~?
-
Edit - I thought solenoids were small? Have used only one half of double wound inductor? When does it become a transformer - when there's more than one winding?
Yes; a transformer transforms voltage and current from one circuit to another, increasing or decreasing the voltage and current. It usually takes two circuits wound on the same core. But you can have a single winding that is tapped with a third wire.
-
Yes- an autotransformer.
Still three terminals, though.
-
Edit - I thought solenoids were small? Have used only one half of double wound inductor? When does it become a transformer - when there's more than one winding?
Yes; a transformer transforms voltage and current from one circuit to another, increasing or decreasing the voltage and current. It usually takes two circuits would on the same core. But you can have a single winding that is tapped with a third wire.
I used a lot of digital to synchro converters in my Gun fire system. I would have to check and approve the vendor designs. Perkin Elmer, DDC, Analog Devices etc.
The transformers wound on tiny donut shaped cores were extremely tiny. You need special lenses to see the windings.
In Con Edison my transformers were huge. Some were greater than 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet. Then I I worked with tiny, tiny tiny.
Years ago many circuits were built using gold wires under microscopes. I would design and test the large scale model and the circuit lab would produce the tiny model. Today they put a billion circuits on a chip. It is amazing.
-
The first disk drive I bought for AT & T cost $60K. It stood three feet high and held 300 megabytes. Now I keep backups on a thumb size 4 Gig chip. Yep; truly amazing.
-
Sophiecentaur - and everyone who is offended at my attitude - please let me explain. While I would love to discuss the circuitry at the level that is probably appropriate for this experiment - I simply cannot. I have no knowledge of electric circuitry other than the simple little experiment that I've detailed in the paper. It is unfortunate. It's all I needed to know. I am entirely and utterly bored by it. If I ask you to put an experiment together, it's not taxing your mind, your time - anything at all. It's a really simple experiment. Just DISPROVE IT.
I just cannot get my mind around is the surprise and anger that this test evokes. It is entirely beyond me. I'll go further and say this - I cannot understand how it is that really clever people cannot see that there would inevitably be a gain.
Clearly it is because you guys see current as one thing - and I another. I've tried to explain my concepts but they are way too elusive. Maybe if you asked specific questions I could try and answer them? But don't test my knowledge of circuitry. It is unfortunate but it's bereft.
-
And Sophiecentaur - in truth I don't think your mind is arthritic. It was my rebuff at your dismissal of my own abilities. I may not know electric circuitry but it does not mean that I know nothing about physics. Just read you posts. They are brutal and undeservedly so.
-
And if I'm asking people to get involved - while it may be 'half fledged' it would be a shame to let it just die. I haven't the interest or the abilities to progress it. But surely there are others out there who could? It's not a frivolous claim. It's not difficult to disprove. And as Jerry pointed out - it's got impressive accreditors.
-
Sorry to post so many consecutive posts - but JerryGG38 - we do use V^2/r analysis. We measure the voltage across the shunt. I gave up on using that analysis on the load resistor as everyone immediately said it was wrong. They couldn't argue wattage related to temperature.
-
And if I'm asking people to get involved - while it may be 'half fledged' it would be a shame to let it just die. I haven't the interest or the abilities to progress it. But surely there are others out there who could? It's not a frivolous claim. It's not difficult to disprove. And as Jerry pointed out - it's got impressive accreditors.
My question on that is who is making money off this idea. Patent lawyers will patent anything as long as they make money on it. Who paid the various labs to sign off on this? Evidently a lot of this is going around. The question is why?
-
Sorry to post so many consecutive posts - but JerryGG38 - we do use V^2/r analysis. We measure the voltage across the shunt. I gave up on using that analysis on the load resistor as everyone immediately said it was wrong. They couldn't argue wattage related to temperature.
Where is this being done? Do you have a current probe so you can check the battery current and battery voltage simultaneously. Also get rid of the battery spikes. Put a large capacitor across the battery. Also put some high frequency capacitors across the capacitor. This will stabilize the battery voltage and it has nothing to do with energy. It will just keep the battery voltage as a perfect source.
Did any EE's help with the circuit? I suggest you study simple circuit equations.
I will study the circuit more. I am trying to understand where the mistake was made.
-
Jerrygg38 - I patented it and then allowed it to lapse - to ensure that no-one could get royalties, including me. That means, apparently, that it's been put in the public domain and precludes anyone from patenting. I did this deliberately because I thought that would encourage people to apply it. But I think I shot myself in the foot because it actually just makes people sceptical. But to your question - NO ONE is making money out of this.
The tests were exhaustive. They were done over a 4 year period ending about 6 years ago. Then I just gave up. Can you believe it that academics wont even attend a demonstration? But it nagged at me - the more so as energy is now such a critical issue. And then, I love my physics and I couldn't entirely give that up - any more I'm sure than you could.
That's when I decided to try and publish. I sort of thought reviewers would help me polish up the paper to make it acceptable. But the IET wouldn't even forward the paper for review. I thought that was the pits.
So then my daughter in law found me this forum. And - yet again - I'm going through the same process. But anyone who wants can do anything they want with this technology. It's available. My contribution to the global energy crisis. And with my love. I have absolutely no interest in progressing this. I'm only interested in the field model.
-
Jerrygg38 - I patented it and then allowed it to lapse - to ensure that no-one could get royalties, including me. That means, apparently, that it's been put in the public domain and precludes anyone from patenting. I did this deliberately because I thought that would encourage people to apply it. But I think I shot myself in the foot because it actually just makes people sceptical. But to your question - NO ONE is making money out of this.
The tests were exhaustive. They were done over a 4 year period ending about 6 years ago. Then I just gave up. Can you believe it that academics wont even attend a demonstration? But it nagged at me - the more so as energy is now such a critical issue. And then, I love my physics and I couldn't entirely give that up - any more I'm sure than you could.
That's when I decided to try and publish. I sort of thought reviewers would help me polish up the paper to make it acceptable. But the IET wouldn't even forward the paper for review. I thought that was the pits.
So then my daughter in law found me this forum. And - yet again - I'm going through the same process. But anyone who wants can do anything they want with this technology. It's available. My contribution to the global energy crisis. And with my love. I have absolutely no interest in progressing this. I'm only interested in the field model.
I did not mean to imply that you are making any money off it. I have patented several things on my own as well. Although I made interesting working models, I never could make any money off them. One I manufactured myself and many people bought it. However it cost more money to advertize it than to sell it. Then I turned into handyman business as part time money.
I am going back into handyman tomorrow. My first ad will come out then. It gives me a little extra money and I like to fix things. I am 70 but I don't understand what it means physically. I am just a little less able than when I was 40.
In any event I will continue to study your circuit. Can you still make any tests? Where is your circuit?
Did you pay these labs to do the work? Did your lawyer ask for the additional payment? I am afraid that people are willing to mislead you for their financial benefit. Did a friend help you?
Some of the people here are rough. I do not think any want to hurt you. Vern is especially a kind person. I pride myself being a good handyman and helping people who cannot afford a plumber or electrician. Sometimes I do the work for no pay. Other times as little as $5 per hour for a poor person. It is a hobby business.
-
The circuits in the garden shed - at the back of the house. I only retested to check the numbers. Donovan needed to confirm them before he put his name to the paper. I needed him to overview the presentation and submit to the IET.
Glad you keep your hand in with work. Was so amused at the comedy of errors with the posts this morning. But, it's late. And to the point. Don't waste your time trying to find the error - unless you're up for it. The truth is that the circuit is never going to be progressed until someone can understand the model. If you can wrap your mind around that - then indeed - it will be a good thing. The main reason I'm so bored with the circuit is that the actual potential of this field is just so much bigger than this little application. I know you don't believe the results. You're in good company. Seeing it is, unfortunately, the only way to believing it.
Thanks for the interest and good luck with your work tomorrow.
EDIT Incidentally, the patent attorney was a retired friend. He did the work for free.
-
Circuit Analysis of Over Unity Circuit
It has been over 20 years since I worked part-time for the circuit analysis dept of Sperry Gyro. It was a very smart group who worked there. The boss was very smart as well.
So now lets say the Government came up with this circuit and asked for an analysis. Preliminary results by Government technicians indicated a possibility of over unity results.
Let us look at the report. First one asks why a current probe was not used.
1. Using a series resistor to measure the current flow from the battery may be okay for a simple DC circuit. However for a transient circuit it is no good.
2. The wire leading from the Rshunt resistor in Figure 1 will have inductance. How long was that wire. For a transient impulse it will cause error terms.
The report specifies on page 6 that the current delivered by the battery would be the product of the instantaneous voltage measured across the shunt divided by the resistance of the shunt measured above zero.
3. Why above zero. The wire leading to the battery causes errors.
Furthermore it states that any current delivered back to the battery would be determined from the instantaneous voltage across the shunt divided by the shunts resistance measured below zero.
4. This statement makes no sense. It will never get below zero unless the wire leading to the battery has high inductance. Somehow the test setup is not producing very good results.
The report goes on to say that the actual current flow from the battery would be the difference between these two values.
5. How horrible to subtract current flows which for this circuit is always flowing from the plus terminal of the battery to the negative terminal.
Note: A current probe would have eliminated that problem.
Let us now understand the circuit.
When the mosfet tries to open up the current flowing through the inductive resistor RL causes a positive voltage to be generated opposite the battery voltage. The electrical laws say that a current through an inductor tries to maintain its flow. The magnetic field starts to collapse and the current continues to flow. The mosfet tries to open up. There are very fast mosfet and much slower mosfets.
The slow ones will take time to open up. The zener diode Q1 protects the mosfet. It will prevent excessive voltage spiking which will destroy the mosfet.
For our Sperry mosfet circuits we needed speed and near infinite resistance very fast in order to sample a voltage source. Years ago when they first came out they were slow.
So for awhile the mosfet keep closed and the spiking current flows through the circuit and back into the negative side of the battery. Therefore the battery is still delivering current while the mosfet is attempting to open up. Even after it opens up the current still flows through Q1 until the zener voltage is reduced. Even after it is reduced, there is a speed involved.
Now we look at diode D1. Diode D1 must be as fast as possible to prevent harm to the mosfet. Many diodes are slow. At Sperry we used the fastest military grade diodes. Some diodes are very slow and therefore when the mosfet tries to open up the diode is still closed.
There is nothing instantaneous about diodes. The net result is that the battery keeps current flow during the spiking period. In general the spike current can be huge compared to the regular DC current flow.
There are smaller effects as well. The sharp pulse from the battery current will radiate electrical energy.
The coil will radiate as well. Thus we have a transmitter. The error from this will be small but it will contribute to the battery energy loss.
It is very difficult to determine how much energy came from the battery. The heat measurements are not very good. A good current probe would help.
An alternative would be to take a very good capacitor and charge it up to 12 volts. Then run the circuit and see how long it takes for the capacitor to discharge. Maybe for only a few milliseconds.
Then we can take a regular resistor and see how long it takes to discharge. The results will be that this circuit gains no energy.
This is a standard simple circuit. If anything strange ever occurred in all the applications, it would have destroyed the use of the mosfet as an analog to digital sampling device. We needed mosfet, which opened up to millions of ohms. And when they closed we needed close to zero impedance. Any strange variation of this circuit or circuits like it would have been sent to circuit analysis.
In a similar vein we had a problem where the resistance of a circuit like this had to be about 10 million ohms when open and it was coming out of spec at around 1 million ohms. Suddenly one of our great missile systems was in trouble. I was asked to solve the problem.
I studied it for awhile and then told the boss, the problem is that the assemblers are touching the cordwood amplifiers. (These were individual resistors and fets, etc). The tiny amount of salt in their hands was destroying the amplifiers.
The solution was that the amplifiers were dipped in alcohol before being encased in their protective coating. End of problem.
You can imagine how crazy things would have been if they produced over unity results.
Sorry to have to destroy this great effort. I do not understand how people with knowledge could have permitted this to be patented.
-
jerrygg38; if you read the patent you will see that it did not mention anything about over-unity. It was simply a design patent. There was no new or useful product claimed. So, it is an interesting thing; maybe fun to play with, but we all knew from the beginning that there was no possible way to generate any useful benefit from it. Still, I do not want to discourage thinking into alternative areas of science. I know that the breakthrough out of our current doldrums will come from such thinking. And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms. That is one of the reasons I have such a keen interest in alternative notions about the nature of the natural laws.
-
I don't think that the patent issue is at all relevant. To have a patent granted, all you need to do is produce some appropriate legal words which define an invention in a way which would identify an infringement and then pay someone some money. The granting of a patent doesn't depend upon exhaustive tests at the patent office.
Whether or not the patent mentions over-unity is not relevant. What jerrygg38 and I have objected to is the notion that overunity results have been claimed. I objected in principle and jerrygg38 has objected in detail to that claim. His objections need to be dealt with in detail. If the circuit doesn't exhibit over unity then it is totally irrelevant. witsend claims that it has gained some sort of approval from a number of bodies. In fact, the only sort of approval that counts is if someone actually tries to reproduce the experiment - polite words are cheap. The easiest way to deal with such approaches is with polite, arms-length non-disagreement and some good wishes. This is all that the papers have actually produced. No one has tried to reproduce the experiment because there is no reason to.
I am all in favour of enthusiasm for real Science but there is a lot of time wasted on non-Science. Exponents of 'fringe' Science seem to get so upset when it's rejected by rational argument and when proper evidence is called for.
Vern, your romantic idea of new Science being discovered by a 'primitive' (in the artistic sense) is not supported by evidence in history. Monkeys and typewriters never get past the occasional intelligent looking word - never a whole sentencewrihfoennnnnf!
-
Vern, your romantic idea of new Science being discovered by a 'primitive' (in the artistic sense) is not supported by evidence in history. Monkeys and typewriters never get past the occasional intelligent looking word - never a whole sentencewrihfoennnnnf!
And then there was this guy that insisted upon spending long hours making wheels when everyone knew it was much more simple just to drag a stick. [:)]
And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms.
I did not mean to preclude literacy outside the established norms.
-
If you look through the history of science it is difficult to say sometimes who came up with what or where did that originate from. People have always looked at ideas from the past and progressed them. Was it Galvani or Volta that invented the battery (cell?) Certainly Galvani made the discovery but his expertise did not allow him to reach the correct conclusion. Ideas from "primatives" will have been improved gradually to the understanding of the world we have now and our ideas will seem primative in the future. Basically, I'm with you Vern.
-
jerrygg38; if you read the patent you will see that it did not mention anything about over-unity. It was simply a design patent. There was no new or useful product claimed. So, it is an interesting thing; maybe fun to play with, but we all knew from the beginning that there was no possible way to generate any useful benefit from it. Still, I do not want to discourage thinking into alternative areas of science. I know that the breakthrough out of our current doldrums will come from such thinking. And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms. That is one of the reasons I have such a keen interest in alternative notions about the nature of the natural laws.
What I read was the Abstract which specifies
"Counter Electromotive force enables overunity results in electric systems."
As far as the patent is concerned that is questionable since the manufacturer of mosfets usually produces technical application designs. Since the circuit is basically a miniature relay switching circuit, it must have been built by many people over 20 years ago.
I built many similar circuits myself. Usually a resistor was connected to the battery then the mosfet and finally a capacitor. The resistors were made as non-inductive as possible. In this way we could
sample the voltage source and then convert the voltage across the capacitor to digital form.
In any event, a design patent should be unique and there is nothing unique in this standard type circuit.
The only thing that bothers me is that the people who processed this should have known better.
I made two patents on my own and I should have known better. The were regular patents and they worked but they were worthless because they were not marketable. Live and learn!
-
I have to agree with what you say, MiL. However, in the same way that it requires a good photographer to recognise whether a picture is worth taking and then to produce it at high quality, it requires someone who knows their stuff to knock a germ of a scientific idea into something worth passing on to the rest of the World. Conservatism (small c) is essential or Science would be dissipating itself up blind alleys all the time.
-
j38
The best way to get involved with patents is to work for a large organisation which wants a serious financial stake in an invention. They will get the best advice and the patent will be well written. It will only be taken up by the organisation if they recognise its worth i.e if it has commercial worth.
In a decent firm you will get some recognition and your name on the patent.
Doing it on your own is a big risk but, of course, there are sometimes, huge rewards.
-
j38
The best way to get involved with patents is to work for a large organisation which wants a serious financial stake in an invention. They will get the best advice and the patent will be well written. It will only be taken up by the organisation if they recognise its worth i.e if it has commercial worth.
In a decent firm you will get some recognition and your name on the patent.
Doing it on your own is a big risk but, of course, there are sometimes, huge rewards.
Working for Sperry there was a patent department. I worked on some. It was usually a team effort. However most of the things I designed for Sperry were never patented. Some were classified and not for public consumption. Many were not patented because in Defense work, the Government mostly pays for research and development and owns the patents.
Therefore we could come up with a great invention and the government could chose another contractor to build it. We were paid for research and development but they owned everything.
Some work is confidential. Some work was Top Secret. I only had secret clearance. But one Boss had Top Secret. He would give me things to design and only a limited knowledge of certain information which I was not supposed to repeat anywhere. So the designs and discoveries had to be kept secret. My memory is not great so the secret codes and information faded from my mind after the project.
As I mentioned before two patent attorneys in Washington DC patent office said:
"Most of the Patents here are not worth the paper they are printed on". Each of my two private patents cost me $5000 each. I should have listened to the two lawyers.
-
Conservatism (small c) is essential or Science would be dissipating itself up blind alleys all the time.
I agree; I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Basically, I'm with you Vern.
Gosh; finally I wrote something that someone else can agree with. [;D]
What I read was the Abstract which specifies
"Counter Electromotive force enables overunity results in electric systems."
I didn't see the over-unity mention in the abstract; I scanned over that and went straight to the claims. Your analysis was great!
-
Hi Jerrygg38. You've certainly been busy. I'll try and plough through your points but not necessarity in the correct order.
To start with - The battery delivers energy during the ON period of each switching cycle. It CANNOT deliver any current/energy call it what you like - during the OFF period. That's not me. That's known. I have spoken about this with many academics - with many electrical engineers and with many electrical technicians. Unless you know something that they do not know - then, again. The fact is that the battery does not deliver during the off period of the switching device.
The question is this. How much energy does it deliver during the ON period? As I understand it, because it's an inductive load these numbers are subject to power factor correction to allow for phase shift. So we ignored the amount of measured voltage - it created too many arguements and left too much to debate. Rather did we simply measure the rate of temperature rise. I think you will agree that this is a fair measure of the actual wattage dissipated at the load. Our actual measure of the rate of temperature rise was crude - as referenced in the paper. But if you allow 10% as a margin for error - then that's probably enough - especially as we run the controls concurrently. But exceed this - make it 20% or 30%, anything Over over unity measurement was 1600%.
When it came to measuring the energy delivered by the battery - we had similar problems. How can one reasonably ascertain the amount of energy delivered by the battery? There were two ways. We could measure the voltage across a carbon shunt. Not too shabby because at least it's not inductive. Or we could measure the rate at which the battery depleted its energy? In fact we did both. And we found that the rate that the battery discharged its energy was consistent with the measured rate of current flow from the battery determined by V^2/R analysis (edit) and as detailed in the paper. BP called for the battery draw down rate as an additional 'proof' of the current flow. Now, not all batteries are the same. Some deplete more quickly than others. Very few exactly match their rated capacities. So. For added proof we tested different sizes, different ampere hours and those tests took forever. We literally had to run either the control or the experiment until one or other or both were flat. (edit) The benefit was measured and unequivocal and matched the analaysis of current flow.
Then objectors found a new objection. You cannot - under any test circumstances rely on battery discharge rates as proof of the claim. So - when it came to designing the paper we left out battery draw down rates except as it applied to the test - to show that this was consistent with the previously measured current draw down rate.
To say that there are potential distortions due to inductance in the wiring - this is unarguable. But all circuitry have wires - or most do. Are all circuit measurements thereby discounted? If they must somehow be factored in to discount that gain, then again, what's reasonable? 10%, 20% - anything you want. The over unity measurment is HUGE.
To get back to the methods of this exercise. It delivers energy during the ON period. This results in a measurable increase of voltage across the resistor. But when the switch 'turns off', or when the battery is disconnected so that it can no longer deliver current, then this voltage across the resistor collapses. It changes its polarity from plus to zero. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. This cycle then, in turn, generates the next phase as a reverse voltage which is seen as a spike then then dips below zero. I have had many arguments against this test. But you are the first person to propose that the battery is actually responsible for this negative voltage. But I'm no expert Jerry. I may be wrong. I have asked a friend of mind to join this forum so that he can argue this point. As I understand it, it may be argued that the battery was responsible for 'storing' that voltage in the first instance. But I don't think it can be argued that the battery is delivering energy during this phase of the circuit's cycle.
Now the next question is what is the advantage of that 'spike'. Does it, in fact, return energy to the battery? Well there's a quick check. Run the circuit from one battery and put the diode to the positive terminal of a second battery. And then link the circuit battery and this second battery only with a common rail on the negative terminals. Then you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. So. One can conclude that this 'spike' is indeed returning energy to that battery to enable it to recharge. And, notwithstanding this 'recharge' the 'spike' voltage is still evident across the load resistor. So. Both the battery and the resistor are getting the benefit of that spike which came from those collapsing fields across the resistor itself. The battery recharges and the load resistor dissipates more energy.
Now. To the best of my knowledge, there is no current probe that is able to distinguish between these two cycles. In other words, it measures the product of all the current on the circuit. In other words it would take the ON cycle when the battery is discharging and the OFF cycle when the battery is recharging and would then correctly indicate that that is the is the amount of current. It would not tell me which came from where? That is why a current probe would be inappropriate. But I'll say it again. The rate at which the battery discharges its energy is consistent with the rate at which current is measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the voltage during both the on and off cycle.
Now - to the accreditors. I really do know that you know 'whereof you speak'. I have gone to some lengths to stress this in previous posts. But I would ask you to consider that those that have tested it are not entirely without training. Surely you, of all people, appreciate the authority of those accreditors. And I only referenced those companies that are listed. edit ( I mean listed public companies). There have been many, many engineers associated with this. No-one who has replicated (there are at least 6) a test or attended a demo (there are at least 30) has been able to argue the results. We have had some demonstrations lasting late into the night with no less than 11 engineers trying to crack the problem - find the fault. But I think you would also appreciate their quandary. While accreditation goes some way to advancing the technology they cannot invest public funds into research that is not also sanctioned by academics. As mentioned in the paper, oOne of the accreditors actually offered a bursay award to take the study further. It was politely declined. So it is left to me and my poor efforts to try and advance this. That I'm an unlikely marketer is unfortuante. But you must surely appreciate that I am not perpetrating a hoax. I certainly am not making money on this. But nor has it cost me any. Just an awful lot of time.
But you must all draw whatever conclusions you want. I was so hoping to convince you Jerry on the need to understand the circuit because you, of all people would be able to understand my field model.
EDIT - I can assure you that no-one who has been involved in these tests has been enriched. No-one has any surruptitious motive. I, and those that have added their name to the paper are simply anxious to get this exercise to an academic forum. Meanwhile I realise that I must do what I can to try and, at least, convince any readers of this thread.
-
And Jerrygg38 the whole patent exercise. You've entirely missed my point. I do not want to make money from any patent rights. Mike is a highly qualified patent attorney - I'll go so far as to say he is one of 5 best in the country. If there are prior claims to the circuitry I dont think that there are any that apply a specific application as does ours. And I don't think it's fair to 'cast aspersions' at the people who have tried to advance this. That you do not agree with it is fair. But that does not, by the same token, diminish the qualification and stature of those few that do. In fact I think it is considerably more responsible to 'try and find' the explanation than it is to dismiss it out of hand. As I keep saying. It's not a frivolous matter.
-
I keep taking further looks at the circuit and thinking about it.
Correct me if I am wrong g38, please.
When the Mosfet turns off, the emf induced in the RL inductance will appear across its terminals will take the voltage on the Drain of the Mosfet more positive than it was (Lenz's law says the sign of the emf is such as to maintain the current flow). The energy in the magnetic field of the load Inductance will then (less inefficiencies) be returned to the battery. I reckon this will be less than the energy which was dissipated in the load Resistance during the 0.02(?)ms of switch on time.
The energy dissipated in the resistor during each On period would be Power times time (assume 2A steady current)
E = I2R t
= about 2X2X10X2^-5 = 8^-4J
Energy stored in the Inductor
E = I2L/2
= 2X2X 8.64^-6/2 = 3.2^-5J
If you saved all the energy stored in the magnetic field of the inductor, you would only be getting back about 4% of the energy dissipated in the resistor each cycle.
As there is no information about even the order of magnitude of the frequency of the parasitic oscillations, I can't go any further than that, BUT, if the duty cycle is greater than the 3.7%, there would be more power dissipated, proportionally, in the resistor. The Q of any resonant circuit involving the wire wound resistor would be low, so I can't even see a mechanism for producing significantly more current in the inductor than the 2A in my calculation.
Whatever measurements are claimed, I don't see how those figures can take you anywhere but where one would expect to be - doubting the measurements.
I suppose it would be ridiculous to suggest that the switching oscillator is providing some energy to the system. I wonder what value of source impedance it has.
I see that your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued!
-
I see that your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued! Did you pay these labs to do the work? Did your lawyer ask for the additional payment? I am afraid that people are willing to mislead you for their financial benefit. Did a friend help you?
Some of the people here are rough. I do not think any want to hurt you. Vern is especially a kind person.
Sophiecentaur - your comments regarding the misconstruction of JerryGG38's reference to patents. I was specifically referencing this. I don't think it's ambiguous. He was clearly concerned that attorneys were co-operating on something they did not take seriously simply to enrich themselves at my expense. He doesn't clarify who it is that he thinks is rough.
-
His comments are quite correct. It is a business and they will take your money if they think there is the remotest chance of producing a valid patent. They're not interested in whether the invention can make you money - it's not their job. Are they likely to turn away good business?
-
Hi Jerrygg38. You've certainly been busy. I'll try and plough through your points but not necessarity in the correct order.
W: To start with - The battery delivers energy during the ON period of each switching cycle. It CANNOT deliver any current/energy call it what you like - during the OFF period. That's not me. That's known. I have spoken about this with many academics - with many electrical engineers and with many electrical technicians. Unless you know something that they do not know - then, again. The fact is that the battery does not deliver during the off period of the switching device.
JG:
I am sorry but at Sperry we had 1500 engineers. 1400 of them were relegated to simple ordinary work. Glorified clerks. There were only about 100 top design engineers. I was one of them. BSEE (Summa Cum Laude).
The Mosfet circuit has many complications. In our accurate circuits we had to be concerned with errors due to switch capacitance as the driving switch toggled and put error tems into the load. This is small but when you must have errors less than 1 part in 1000, it becomes significant.
When you look at the mosfet switch specifications you will also find turn on times and turn off times. If you want to turn off fast you need something better than the 555. The 555 is great for home experiments. I no longer have my spec books but the 555 is not good for military accuracy.
The inductor will tend to change polarity and drive current right throught the mosfet as it is trying to turn off.. Some mosfets will do better. Most worse.
All the action is happening as the mosfet is trying to turn off. The current spike is large. It will drive the inductor current right through the battery. The inductor is also helped by the wiring from the battery to the circuit and the circuit back to the battery.
W: The question is this. How much energy does it deliver during the ON period? As I understand it, because it's an inductive load these numbers are subject to power factor correction to allow for phase shift. So we ignored the amount of measured voltage - it created too many arguements and left too much to debate. Rather did we simply measure the rate of temperature rise. I think you will agree that this is a fair measure of the actual wattage dissipated at the load. Our actual measure of the rate of temperature rise was crude - as referenced in the paper. But if you allow 10% as a margin for error - then that's probably enough - especially as we run the controls concurrently. But exceed this - make it 20% or 30%, anything Over over unity measurement was 1600%.
When it came to measuring the energy delivered by the battery - we had similar problems. How can one reasonably ascertain the amount of energy delivered by the battery? There were two ways. We could measure the voltage across a carbon shunt. Not too shabby because at least it's not inductive. Or we could measure the rate at which the battery depleted its energy? In fact we did both. And we found that the rate that the battery discharged its energy was consistent with the measured rate of current flow from the battery determined by V^2/R analysis (edit) and as detailed in the paper. BP called for the battery draw down rate as an additional 'proof' of the current flow. Now, not all batteries are the same. Some deplete more quickly than others. Very few exactly match their rated capacities. So. For added proof we tested different sizes, different ampere hours and those tests took forever. We literally had to run either the control or the experiment until one or other or both were flat. (edit) The benefit was measured and unequivocal and matched the analaysis of current flow.
JG: Unfortunately you did not place capacitors across the batteries. This would have stabilized the current spikes better. The experiment then became apples and oranges. On the one hand you had a transient circuit with large current spikes verses a simple resistor load.
There may be many possible explanations. It may be possible that the current spikes caused the battery to be able to discharge more energy than under ordinary conditions. The current spikes may have shook up the chemistry and caused more capacity to be produced. If you had put high frequency capacitors across the battery, this would have protected the battery from the current spikes. Therefore for a fair test you must deplete a battery using current spikes and deplete a battery using ordinary resistors.
The best solution would have been to charge up a large capacitor in parallel with several high frequency capacitors. Then let the circuit discharge it. At least that would be a fair test. The test you used is not a fair test.
W: Then objectors found a new objection. You cannot - under any test circumstances rely on battery discharge rates as proof of the claim. So - when it came to designing the paper we left out battery draw down rates except as it applied to the test - to show that this was consistent with the previously measured current draw down rate.
JG: Due to the unknown effect of transient currents on a battery verses simple steady state currents, the battery draw down test is no good unless you protect it by capacitors.
W: To say that there are potential distortions due to inductance in the wiring - this is unarguable. But all circuitry have wires - or most do. Are all circuit measurements thereby discounted? If they must somehow be factored in to discount that gain, then again, what's reasonable? 10%, 20% - anything you want. The over unity measurment is HUGE.
JG: For our highly accurate measurement circuits wiring had to be taken into account. Often special shielded wiring was necessary. There is an art to proper wiring. In your case, it is most likely a small effect. However your over unity was not huge. It was non-existant.
W: To get back to the methods of this exercise. It delivers energy during the ON period. This results in a measurable increase of voltage across the resistor. But when the switch 'turns off', or when the battery is disconnected so that it can no longer deliver current, then this voltage across the resistor collapses. It changes its polarity from plus to zero.
JG: Firstly it does not turn off fast and current keeps flowing into the battery negative terminal and out the positive terminal. You say the voltage across the resistor goes to zero. Which resistor.? The lower resistor has the current spike current flow in it until the mosfet slowly turns off. The resistor RL produces a voltage basically equal to the battery voltage but in the reverse direction. Thus at the start of the current spike the voltage at the mosfet, the junction of Q1 and D1 goes to twice the battery voltage for the current spike. The zener diode tries to clamp this voltage to prevent the mosfet from being destroyed. At the same time the diode D1 starts to turn on.
We had to use very fast diodes. Hopefully your EE friends that a positive voltage across diode D1 means nothing for a split second until the diode starts to work.
Where did you get the components to do your experiment? Radio shack diodes? Some of the military grade diodes could cost $100. Super fast diodes cost money.
W: Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. This cycle then, in turn, generates the next phase as a reverse voltage which is seen as a spike then then dips below zero. I have had many arguments against this test. But you are the first person to propose that the battery is actually responsible for this negative voltage.
I will have to see the context of what I said. For a damped circuit, the spike across the lower shunt resistor should try to go twice the battery voltage but it will be clamped by the diodes and various capacitances within the mosfet. If the circuit is ringing, you could get some negative voltage across the lower resistor.
W: But I'm no expert Jerry. I may be wrong. I have asked a friend of mind to join this forum so that he can argue this point. As I understand it, it may be argued that the battery was responsible for 'storing' that voltage in the first instance. But I don't think it can be argued that the battery is delivering energy during this phase of the circuit's cycle.
JG: The spike energy must come through the battery. The ringing or oscillation of the spike is a small error term.
W: Now the next question is what is the advantage of that 'spike'. Does it, in fact, return energy to the battery?
JG: The spike sucks up battery power. It reduces your efficiency from over unity to less than 100 percent.
W: Well there's a quick check. Run the circuit from one battery and put the diode to the positive terminal of a second battery. And then link the circuit battery and this second battery only with a common rail on the negative terminals. Then you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. So. One can conclude that this 'spike' is indeed returning energy to that battery to enable it to recharge. And, notwithstanding this 'recharge' the 'spike' voltage is still evident across the load resistor. So. Both the battery and the resistor are getting the benefit of that spike which came from those collapsing fields across the resistor itself. The battery recharges and the load resistor dissipates more energy.
JG: The spike is the whole ball of wax. When the resistor/inductor RL reverses voltage, this discharges the battery more. However as I noted, it is unknown if spiking current causes batteries to have more power available.
W: Now. To the best of my knowledge, there is no current probe that is able to distinguish between these two cycles. In other words, it measures the product of all the current on the circuit. In other words it would take the ON cycle when the battery is discharging and the OFF cycle when the battery is recharging and would then correctly indicate that that is the is the amount of current. It would not tell me which came from where? That is why a current probe would be inappropriate. But I'll say it again. The rate at which the battery discharges its energy is consistent with the rate at which current is measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the voltage during both the on and off cycle.
JG: A good current probe will show a positive discharge current from the battery and from most of the current spike. It will also show when some negative current flows back into the battery. If you used a rechargeable battery, the negative current would recharge it. The ordinary carbon batteries may merely appear as a resistor to backward current flow. They might recharge very slightly but in most cases people are warned not to try to recharge them. The lead acid battery will accept discharging currents and charging currents. However current spikes may have complex chemical effects on these batteries. That is why you need some good high frequency capacitors across the batteries.
W: Now - to the accreditors. I really do know that you know 'whereof you speak'. I have gone to some lengths to stress this in previous posts. But I would ask you to consider that those that have tested it are not entirely without training. Surely you, of all people, appreciate the authority of those accreditors. And I only referenced those companies that are listed. edit ( I mean listed public companies). There have been many, many engineers associated with this. No-one who has replicated (there are at least 6) a test or attended a demo (there are at least 30) has been able to argue the results. We have had some demonstrations lasting late into the night with no less than 11 engineers trying to crack the problem - find the fault. But I think you would also appreciate their quandary. While accreditation goes some way to advancing the technology they cannot invest public funds into research that is not also sanctioned by academics. As mentioned in the paper, oOne of the accreditors actually offered a bursay award to take the study further. It was politely declined. So it is left to me and my poor efforts to try and advance this. That I'm an unlikely marketer is unfortuante. But you must surely appreciate that I am not perpetrating a hoax. I certainly am not making money on this. But nor has it cost me any. Just an awful lot of time.
JG: I believe you to be a very honest sincere person. I cannot understand how the people who have helped you could take a simple standard circuit which has been around in many different forms since world war 2 or before and turn it into a miracle. If such a miracle occurred, the thousands of electrical engineers in the business would have spotted this amazing result.
It may be possible that you discovered that spiking currents through batteries produce more power than simple resistors. Perhaps if this is true, then the circuit can suck out more power from batteries. Therefore you can charge the battery and get more power between recharging. However you will have to add more energy during the recharge.
That is the only possibility I can see for getting more juice from the battery. The circuit is an energy expender not an energy producer.
W: But you must all draw whatever conclusions you want. I was so hoping to convince you Jerry on the need to understand the circuit because you, of all people would be able to understand my field model.
JG: The field model is a different issue. Your pictures of the higher light speed energy is quite lovely. Yet this circuit is merely a typical relay switching circuit that appears a billion times in different forms from the time of Mr. Bell.
-
I see that your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued! Did you pay these labs to do the work? Did your lawyer ask for the additional payment? I am afraid that people are willing to mislead you for their financial benefit. Did a friend help you?
Some of the people here are rough. I do not think any want to hurt you. Vern is especially a kind person.
Sophiecentaur - your comments regarding the misconstruction of JerryGG38's reference to patents. I was specifically referencing this. I don't think it's ambiguous. He was clearly concerned that attorneys were co-operating on something they did not take seriously simply to enrich themselves at my expense. He doesn't clarify who it is that he thinks is rough.
I am not referring to anyone in particular as being rough. In general many forums have harsh people. Some are just rough. It is like a doctor. Some have great bedside manners. Some are rough.
I grew up in Brooklyn so I am used to rough people.
-
His comments are quite correct. It is a business and they will take your money if they think there is the remotest chance of producing a valid patent. They're not interested in whether the invention can make you money - it's not their job. Are they likely to turn away good business?
Often the patent lawyers are born con men. They have a lot of sad and angry customers. Very few warn people that the chance of success for their patent is basically zero.
-
witsend:
You don't comment on the meat of my post - which includes a mention of the lack of information in the paper about the frequency / frequencies at which it self oscillates. Do you have that information?
-
Soph: I keep taking further looks at the circuit and thinking about it.
Correct me if I am wrong g38, please.
When the Mosfet turns off, the emf induced in the RL inductance will appear across its terminals will take the voltage on the Drain of the Mosfet more positive than it was (Lenz's law says the sign of the emf is such as to maintain the current flow).
JG: The junction of D1 & Q1 will try to become twice the battery voltage until Q1 conducts and D1 conducts.
Soph: The energy in the magnetic field of the load Inductance will then (less inefficiencies) be returned to the battery.
JG: The energy of the magnetic field will not return to the battery. It will keep sucking energy out of the battery until the diode D1 starts to conduct and the Mosfet turns off fully. The only way you can get any energy back from that circuit is to place another diode D3 at the junction of D1 and Q1 and connect it to another lower voltage battery. Thus instead of the magnetic field discharging through diode D1 and around RL, the energy could go to another battery. Under no circumstances will the energy return to the driving batterry
Soph: I reckon this will be less than the energy which was dissipated in the load Resistance during the 0.02(?)ms of switch on time.
The energy dissipated in the resistor during each On period would be Power times time (assume 2A steady current)
E = I2R t
= about 2X2X10X2^-5 = 8^-4J
Energy stored in the Inductor
E = I2L/2
= 2X2X 8.64^-6/2 = 3.2^-5J
If you saved all the energy stored in the magnetic field of the inductor, you would only be getting back about 4% of the energy dissipated in the resistor each cycle.
As there is no information about even the order of magnitude of the frequency of the parasitic oscillations, I can't go any further than that, BUT, if the duty cycle is greater than the 3.7%, there would be more power dissipated, proportionally, in the resistor. The Q of any resonant circuit involving the wire wound resistor would be low, so I can't even see a mechanism for producing significantly more current in the inductor than the 2A in my calculation.
Whatever measurements are claimed, I don't see how those figures can take you anywhere but where one would expect to be - doubting the measurements.
JG: I haven’t even bothered to do any exact calculations because no matter what resistor or inductance you chose, the circuit will always lose energy.
SOPH: I suppose it would be ridiculous to suggest that the switching oscillator is providing some energy to the system. I wonder what value of source impedance it has.
JG:The switching oscillator cannot provide any energy. If it did, it would have been taught in schools 50 years ago. It is a fun circuit. The question I have is if batteries can produce more energy when you use current spikes to shake up the chemistry? I do not know. All I know is that I have built and tested variations of these circuits over the years. So has Analog devices, Data Device Corp, Perkin Elmer, etc.
None of these companies have every produced a specification for these circuits and devices that indicated a strange and unusual behavior occurred.
If you have never built circuits like this, then it may be possible to be confused by such claims.
The fascinating thing to me is what errors were made by several people which made them believe this circuit produced miracles.
I no longer have any test equipment. I no longer build circuits. Yet there must be some mistakes the various people made. The only thing I can think of is that spiking currents cause batteries to be able to drain more current. Then they have to be recharged more.
Soph:I see that your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued!
JG: You cannot take me seriously on all my comments. It depends upon my mood at the time. Sometimes I am in a funny mood. Sometimes sad. Therefore I reserve the right to reject yesterdays comments. Sometimes my wife takes me too seriously. Just because I was upset over something yesterday does not mean that today it still bothers me. And whatever we argued over yesterday, I cannot remember today.
-
I was assuming that the 555 timer / oscillator could have been fed from elsewhere.
I don't subscribe to Magic, any more than you, jg38!
I think I made the suggestion way back that, suitable ways of drawing current from a battery could make it function as a primary cell, delivering more energy than it was originally charged with. That could only be ascertained after thousands of hours of operation and a completely flat battery.
However, I think, as you do, that it is far more likely that there is some measurement flaw which might be glaringly obvious if we actually played with the system. But I couldn't be naffed to go to all that effort to try to reproduce a fault on a circuit which is of very little interest in the first place.
There is a big snag that witsend's descriptions and the use of some terms are so non standard that it is difficult to determine exactly what to think. Some necessary information seems to be jealously guarded and without it it's even harder to spot the flaw. I really don't think she actually wants anyone to find a flaw. I must say that, If I were her, I would be incredibly relieved when someone found it.
I have been, in the past, when I've seen 'Magical' results in my own experiments.
-
Sophiecentaur - I did not answer the meat of your post becasue I could not understand it. The frequency, from memory was 156Khz - but, what I have not included in any of these posts but will do so now. There are two academics involved with this test. Both have SPECIFICALLY required that I do not mention their association with this application. The one kindly edited the paper prior to submission and suggested changes. My co-author attended to those requirments. I will look up the first publication again. I should have it somewhere. It does give the frequency. There was some reason it was omitted. Possibly the non-periodic nature of the waveform? I just don't know. It may even have been an oversight. But, within the week, I should be able to get back to you on this point.
I wlll say it again. This paper, or this experiment needs to be submitted for reveiw. That way it can, at least, get to the academic forum. I can't get it to review. But, while I've mentioned two academics I actually know of at least one other who has tested. He was particularly antagonistic so am personally surprised that I have not yet received a 'I told you so' communique. Possibly it was so self-evident it doesn't deserve such. If he's a 'trawler' then let this be a challenge.
EDIT - sorry, I should have mentioned. I am not JELOUSLY guarding any secret. On the contrary. As I said, I have never understood how really clever people cannot see that a gain is inevitable. From a purely measurements point of view - take the DC voltage measurements across the shunt and simultaneously compare it to the ACrms. The DC is the difference between above and below zero. The ACrms is the product. Then argue those numbers.
-
I was assuming that the 555 timer / oscillator could have been fed from elsewhere.
I don't subscribe to Magic, any more than you, jg38!
I think I made the suggestion way back that, suitable ways of drawing current from a battery could make it function as a primary cell, delivering more energy than it was originally charged with. That could only be ascertained after thousands of hours of operation and a completely flat battery.
However, I think, as you do, that it is far more likely that there is some measurement flaw which might be glaringly obvious if we actually played with the system. But I couldn't be naffed to go to all that effort to try to reproduce a fault on a circuit which is of very little interest in the first place.
There is a big snag that witsend's descriptions and the use of some terms are so non standard that it is difficult to determine exactly what to think. Some necessary information seems to be jealously guarded and without it it's even harder to spot the flaw. I really don't think she actually wants anyone to find a flaw. I must say that, If I were her, I would be incredibly relieved when someone found it.
I have been, in the past, when I've seen 'Magical' results in my own experiments.
There is many different ways to look at the problem. Basically the energy delivered to the load is a half square wave. Depending on the time constant the voltage and current of one half cycle is a half square wave. The second part of the cycle is basically zero. the energy delivered to the load resistor is the root mean square of all the fourier components.
Energy = (DC^2 +f1^2 + f3^2 + f5^2)^0.5
So we have a fourier series for the energy to the load
The energy problem then gets more complicated. All the energy must come from the battery but measuring just DC values will not give us the correct answers. We may need a spectrum analyzer to do the correct analysis.
In any event the calculations can get complicated by the circuit is just an old fashioned R/L circuit.
I would like to see W's engineering friends justify their conclusions.
I do not blame her for believing it. I just wonder how this circuit got started in the first place. Who thought of it and why?
Why did people make a fuss over an electricity 101 circuit? Where did this idea come from?
Why did so many people sign on to it?
We could say the same thing about many other theories.
-
I would like to see W's engineering friends justify their conclusions.
I do not blame her for believing it. I just wonder how this circuit got started in the first place. Who thought of it and why?
Why did people make a fuss over an electricity 101 circuit? Where did this idea come from?
Why did so many people sign on to it? JerryGG39
No-one has justified their conclusions. No-one involved in these tests have concluded anything at all - except for me and the co-author. And our conclusions appear to be entirely irrelevant. Jerry, if you'd seen these numbers, and then seen them, and then - nothing seems to 'TAKE THEM AWAY' then maybe you'd also want the experts to come in and comment. That's all that any accreditors have suggested.
-
Sorry JerryGG38 - I should have said. Classical assumption is that current flow comprises electrons. The model suggests that it is in fact magnetic dipolar tachyons with a velocity of 2c. Which is right? I'm proposing that my model may be right because the evidence, at its very least, defies classical constraints.
That's why I put this circuit together.
So many people signed up to it not because of my explanation but because, like me, they are appealing to experts to explain this, or alternatively to advance this - not I believe, my model, but the technology itself.
The problem, as written, is that no-one can explain it within a classical context. So the next best thing is to disprove it. If it can't be disproved, then there's an outside chance that the model may be a sufficient explanation.
But that has HUGE problems. It relates to the proposal that anything can exceed light speed. I have always been given to understand that this is the one thing that cannot be seriously considered. I saw it as the overriding flaw in my field model. If, however, light speed is not too critical to classical theory - then maybe it CAN be accepted.
-
witsend:
To measure electrical energy rigorously you correctly make the point that you need to measure both the voltage and the current, continuously, and then sum the products of I and V over the time interval. This is the only way you can be sure of how much energy your battery (a non-linear source) has delivered to a non linear load. As gg38 says, it is a help if the battery has capacitors added across it to keep its PD constant and this should allow the RMS Current to give you the right answer. But, of course, the sample rate for your calculation must be high enough.
"Power Factor" is a term which can only be applied to a sinusoid and is a convenient quantity to use in AC Power Engineering.
If your waveform has a period of about 5 microseconds then you need to be sampling and calculating at a minimum of 400kHZ. But you need to be looking at twice the ringing frequency of any inductances. This ringing could be at several hundred MHz and your Fluke 123 may well have ignored it. You don't mention the sample rate but it can't have been more than 80MHz - from the Fluke spec. A copy of the Scope trace would have helped.
Here's a mystery
That's why I put this circuit together.
You claim to know no serious electronics and to be a "layman" and yet you selected this circuit to show the effect. You said that it was a natural choice. It wouldn't be a natural choice for 'the man in the street'. In fact, an electronic solution would not seem to be the obvious choice for anyone who is not 'mainstream'. Your model would have ramifications all over Science, surely. What about the Maths involved? You say you don't do Maths. I find this fascinating.
Where does this circuit come from? You seemed not to pick up on my comment when I mentioned a Capacitor, way back in the thread, but you selected a Mosfet for your switching. Why not have started with a simple transistor circuit? Is there a history to the circuit development? When did it start to reveal this anomaly?
-
Sophiecentaur. I'm going to answer your second question first. I still have to absorb the point of your first. Can't you see it? Inductive laws are - a changing magnetic field induces and electric field. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field. Well. If there's an induced magnetic field on a resistor as a result of an electric field - then the solution is simple. Interrupt the flow - induce a changing electric field - and we're back with a changing magnetic field. And that changing magnetic field will again induce an electric field.
You would have laughed at my first circuit. Certainly the Professors were amused. I literally drew a battery because that's how Dyson illustrates it. Then I drew a winding - literally - and then, by sheer chance I drew an arrow in parallel going back to the battery. Then - I had no idea how to draw a switch - so I simply left a gap and then took the wire back to the terminal. It was positively comical. Claymans immediately said - 'well we can test that'. I had no idea that there were circuit devices to enable it. Simply no idea. Claymans suggested they build the circuit in the lab. But the lab technician refused - saying he was not prepared to get involved with overunity circuitry. That was the FIRST time that I had an objection. Right at kick off.
Then - I spent ages trying to find someone to put the circuit together.
That is the entire account. I was looking to find a way to interrupt a curren flow but get the energy back. The diode and the MOSFET were the enabling 'things'. Everyone in the world seemed to know about them except me.
-
witsend
Your first para is just a qualitative statement of Maxwell's equations. The simple logic of that is that you might just as soon expect that reflected light or radio waves would be bigger than the incident waves, on occasions. I don't think anyone has ever seen this. That would be a real shocker.
But, without numbers, the argument means nothing. Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. As I have said before, you hypothesis needs to explain everything else too, if it is correct.
-
Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. Sophiecentaur
Had I done this I would never have tried that circuit. It strikes me that people go to extraordinary lengths to refute those very Laws that are irrefutable. I think the idea is to try and keep the efficiency at less than 1. I can think of no other reason. But that's science for you.
EDIT - The difference being that I did not need to 'lose energy' as a result of the induced current flow. I only needed to lose charge. And there again, I could not understand why the boffins could not see that benefit. Fortunately, also at the start, I had only read Zukov and Dyson and they both stated that current flow does not comprise a flow of electrons. But I had no idea that ACTUALLY electrical engineers, to a man, seem insist that it does.
EDIT yet again. My model was pretty well developed by the time I proposed current flow was magnetic fields. But I actually thought that no-one knew what it was. That's why I felt brave enough to come forward with my explanation. The first time I tried to wrap my mind around how you guys thought of it was this year. Before that the question never came up. If it did it certainly wasn't in discussion with me.
-
As I have said before, you hypothesis needs to explain everything else too, if it is correct. Sophiecentaur
At the risk of attack. I believe it does.
-
Additional Analysis of Over Unity Circuit
Although I pointed out that the transient spikes would produce additional current drain and damage the efficiency, the problem seems more fundamental than that.
In general if the circuit worked perfectly, the battery would deliver current for one half cycle of the square wave 555 input (assuming a perfect square wave). During the second half cycle, the inductive resistor would discharge through diode D1 and come around the inductor until the energy was dissipated. Thus the inductive resistor would always be carrying current.
The spiking can be minimized with a very fast diode D1, Long before problems with Mosfets and similar circuits, the speeds of the diodes were not that important. However ion order to make circuits work near perfectly high-speed diodes were developed.
So higher speed diodes can reduce the current flow from the battery during the spikes. Still all the ender merely dissipates in the inductive resistor.
This morning I returned to the days when I build my first oscilloscope. They used to sell kits. They did not have DC oscilloscopes. The probes were always AC coupled.
It was only after I went to work at Sperry that I got to work with DC Hewlett Packet oscilloscopes.
I mention this because Witsend specifies in her report that she subtracts the positive current flow across the shunt resistor from the negative current flow across the shunt resistor. Except for a ringing condition due to an undamped total circuit, the voltage across the shunt resistor is always positive.
If they put the scope on AC, then the waveshape across the shunt resistor would show a positive value for half cycle and a negative value for the other half cycle. This is wrong. The same problem would happen in my old oscilloscope. The AC coupling would bring the zero current half of the cycle to a negative value.
I will repeat the incorrect statement on page 6
Therefore it is determined that the current delivered by the battery would be the product of the instantaneous voltage measured across the shunt divided by the resistance of the shunt above zero. Correspondingly any current delivered back to the battery would be determined from the instantaneous voltage across the shunt divided by the shunts resistance measured below zero. The actual flow of current from the battery would be the difference between these two values.
Although the words are not in exact proper order, they indicate that one voltage level was chosen as positive and the other as negative. However a standard DC probe would not have had any voltage below zero. (Except for ringing caused by wiring inductance and Mosfet internal capacitance which cause the inductor to discharge through the mosfet capacitance) (This should be a small effect)
Let us now make a simple diagram of a square wave.
A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
....................................>
....................................>
................................... >
....................................>
B…………………………...............>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the ideal case A = B and the result is zero. The solid line represents the ground level.
Depending upon the duty cycle of the 555, you will get various waveshapes depending upon the circuits. For the ideal case above, it will be almost equal and the difference measure by an AC scope probe will be zero. Thus the circuit works perfectly with no energy by your measurement technique error.
The true DC scope will look as follows
A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
..................................>
..................................>
B---------------------…>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Notice that for the true DC scope readings, there is no negative voltage across the shunt. (Except ringing and some spiking)
Therefor the error appears to be simpler than the complex analysis I used before.
Witsend does not show the positive and negative readings in the report. She merely states that the summation of these readings was 1.3 watts on page 7.
I would like her to show the data. Then we can bring the positive voltage level upward by bringing the minus voltage upward to zero. In this way we can produce the correct readings.
Any EE or test Engineer should have known to use a DC probe and a DC scope.
If they did the job with an AC probe and or an AC scope, then they made a serious mistake.
Anyway Witsend please provide all the data used during the measurements so we can correct the data to produce the right results.
-
I would like her to show the data. Then we can bring the positive voltage level upward by bringing the minus voltage upward to zero. In this way we can produce the correct readings. JerryGG38 I'm here. Why do you refer to 'her' and talk over my head?
-
As I have said before, you hypothesis needs to explain everything else too, if it is correct. Sophiecentaur
At the risk of attack. I believe it does.
If your belief can stretch so far as to show the expected wavelengths of the Hydrogen lines (the simplest bit of Modern Physics, you might say) I shall be very impressed. Or will you say that you don't like to get involved in figures? I don't have to attack; I just need to ask a question which you ought to be able to answer. If you don't think I'd understand your personal notation - try me. I just need a starting scenario and some figures at the end which correspond, say, to the Lyman series.
btw Current is not "A flow of Electrons". It is a flow of charge. In metals, that charge happens to be carried by electrons. Do you deny that Cathode rays carry the charge through the vacuum of a TV tube? Do you deny Albert's Photoelectric effect? There is sooooo much evidence for this. Do you have any which shows the contrary, irrefutably?
Also: If you "lose charge" from an object or system then, very soon, the potential will become very high - Q=CV is a well known and tested formula.
-
jg38, what you are saying is probably somewhere near what actually happened. By your reasonable reasoning, the measurements show that the AC component of average power is a small fraction of the total power delivered to the load. That was interpreted as over unity.
-
I would like her to show the data. Then we can bring the positive voltage level upward by bringing the minus voltage upward to zero. In this way we can produce the correct readings. JerryGG38 I'm here. Why do you refer to 'her' and talk over my head?
Sorry. I guess I was speaking to the general audience. Do you have the data?
-
jg38, what you are saying is probably somewhere near what actually happened. By your reasonable reasoning, the measurements show that the AC component of average power is a small fraction of the total power delivered to the load. That was interpreted as over unity.
Unfortunately all my electrical textbooks were thrown out long ago. I only have the physics books and Calculus by Thomas.
The fourier series for a square wave where the bottom pusle is at zero and the top pulse is at Vb has a general DC component of
DC = Vb/2
Then it has a fundamental at the 555 frequency. I will have to look up the series on the internet but the fundamental AC component is almost as large as the DC. Then comes the third harmonic which is reasonable large.
Yes. Your words are very good. The probe is seeing the AC and Witsend and company modified the AC component and turned it into a DC component. The probe blocked the DC. Without the data and assuming that the AC component was approximately 80 percent of the DC component, we get from Witsends data
67.6 kilojoules for AC component
81.12 kilojoules for DC component
148.7 kilojoules delivered by battery
The load dissipated by Witsends numbers
122 kilojoules (note Witsend states 1.22 megajoules)
The efficiency of the circuit is
122/148 = 82%
The duty cycle was on 3.7 percent but that merely changes the problem from a symettrical square wave to a pulse. The results will be basically the same. The error as we pointed out that they used the AC probe which eliminated the DC term.
-
Sophiecentaur. Could you please define your definition of charge. Otherwise we will be missing each other forever. When I have got this I will then I hope to be able to explain what I mean. Clearly my use of the term is not conventional. I apologise.
And JerryGG38 - please could you read my earlier post. You are arguing the same thing that I tried to cover. I have NO authority to say that it is wrong to average the two cycles. But I do have the authority of those academics who have been associated with this exercise. While I am very happy to acknowledge your understanding in the field, I will not do so at the expense of their's.
The post is dated 08.06.2009.
-
Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. Sophiecentaur
Had I done this I would never have tried that circuit. It strikes me that people go to extraordinary lengths to refute those very Laws that are irrefutable. I think the idea is to try and keep the efficiency at less than 1. I can think of no other reason. But that's science for you.
EDIT - The difference being that I did not need to 'lose energy' as a result of the induced current flow. I only needed to lose charge. And there again, I could not understand why the boffins could not see that benefit. Fortunately, also at the start, I had only read Zukov and Dyson and they both stated that current flow does not comprise a flow of electrons. But I had no idea that ACTUALLY electrical engineers, to a man, seem insist that it does.
EDIT yet again. My model was pretty well developed by the time I proposed current flow was magnetic fields. But I actually thought that no-one knew what it was. That's why I felt brave enough to come forward with my explanation. The first time I tried to wrap my mind around how you guys thought of it was this year. Before that the question never came up. If it did it certainly wasn't in discussion with me.
No one is trying to deny the overunity circuit due to some prior understandings. This circuit has been built billions of times in telephone circuits and military circuits. It is just a common circuit and poor test techniques produced an error in thinking.Therefore this whole discussion of the circuit is meaningless. Interest but meaningless.
Now your ideas of magnetic fields producing current flows is a worthy discussion. I suggest you drop the overcurrent circuit and specify your ideas concerning current flows.
The flow of an electron through a vacuum tube is a current flow where the quanta of charge is 1.602E-19 coulombs. It is certain that the current flow is exactly the number of electrons per second. There is no reason to believe it is subdivided any finer.
Now we take the current flow in a wire. Conventional theory specifies that an electron flows from one atom to another and pushes each atom along. That always seemed okay to me but it is possible that the quanta could be smaller than the electron.
In my Dot-wave theory my smallest high energy dot wave has an energy and wavelength equal to the standard AM radio band.
To me a moving dot-wave is a magnetic field. A stationary dot-wave is a stationary electric field. The minute the dot-wave moves it is part of the magnetic field.
Therefore you may very well be correct that an electric current is the flow of a magnetic field. So I suggest you start a new topic and discuss your ideas which have a degree of merit.
-
Sophiecentaur. Could you please define your definition of charge. Otherwise we will be missing each other forever. When I have got this I will then I hope to be able to explain what I mean. Clearly my use of the term is not conventional. I apologise.
And JerryGG38 - please could you read my earlier post. You are arguing the same thing that I tried to cover. I have NO authority to say that it is wrong to average the two cycles. But I do have the authority of those academics who have been associated with this exercise. While I am very happy to acknowledge your understanding in the field, I will not do so at the expense of their's.
The post is dated 08.06.2009.
I suggest you copy our comments and return them to your friends. Then they will see their errors.
-
jerryGG38 - Are you saying, in simple terms that we must average the voltage during both periods of the duty cycle? Please just say yes or no. If it's No, then explain what you mean, if you don't mind. Thanks.
Edit:Jerry, I'm holding my breath here. Have I got this right. Do you mean us to average the voltage measured across the resistive load? If this is not what you mean then may I ask you to explain what you mean?
Edit again - sorry, I mean over the shunt resistor.
-
jerryGG38 - Are you saying, in simple terms that we must average the voltage during both periods of the duty cycle? Please just say yes or no. If it's No, then explain what you mean, if you don't mind. Thanks.
I just cannot say yes because it could be misinterpreted. There are two ways of solving the problem.
Solution 1 requires you to raise the lowest level of the waveshape to zero. This will raise up the highest level. For example if the waveshape has a low level of -1 volts and a high level of 4 volts, we must bring the -1 level to zero volts and the 4 volt level to 5 volts.
Then you can calculate the data correctly. You will have nothing to subtract.
The second method is by turning the waveshape into DC and AC components. The DC component is the average level. The AC components are what you see on the scope. The problem is you need to produce a fourier series solution for the waveshape.
Alternatively there are devices called spectrum analyzers. These instruments (they are expensive) will tell you all the AC components. The most important will be the first, third, and fifth harmonic.
It is easier to calculate the series if it is a reasonable pulse or square wave type.
The solution is the square root of the sum of the squares of all the components. This is a tough way to go without a spectrum analyzer.
Since you used the first method, it is only necessary for you to move the bottom voltage up and then recalculate the problem. Never subtract anything!!!!!!!!!!
-
So. Is it reasonable to assume that the voltage measured above zero comes from the battery? And, in the same way is it also for some reason unreasonable to assume that the Negative voltage comes from the inductance on the load resistor?
EDIT - what I'm actually asking is this. Do you know of any lead acid battery that is able to deliver a negative current flow?
-
So. Is it reasonable to assume that the voltage measured above zero comes from the battery? And, in the same way is it also for some reason unreasonable to assume that the Negative voltage comes from the inductance on the load resistor?
If you had used a DC probe on the oscilloscope, the shunt resistor voltage would go from zero in the off cycle to a positive value in the on cycle.
It is very unreasonable to assume that the negative voltage (flat level) comes from the inductor.
The only thing the inductor could do is produce a positive spike. However if the circuit is underdamped due to extraneous capacitance, you could get a secondary negative spike.
The big problem is the inductor produces spikes and not a flat negative level. That negative level comes from the oscilloscope probe.
Check to see if they used an AC probe. The probe itself produces the negative level.
-
It is very unreasonable to assume that the negative voltage (flat level) comes from the inductor. jerryGG38
Ok. Let me try this again. When the battery is disconnected - courtesy the switch and the MOSFET - then we find that there is a very large voltage. This is evident on the oscilloscope. I'm sure you will agree with me that it does not come from the battery. It is generally known as Back EMF - in motor driven circuits. We don't have a motor - so here it is, apparently and correctly referred to as counter electromotive force. This counter electromotive force is known to be caused by the field collapsing in inductive components in the circuit. The only outrageously inductive component in our circuit is the resistor. So why then is it very unreasonable to assume, in line with well known circuit theory, that this counter electromotive force comes from the inductor?
EDIT: Just ignore, for now, whether it is above or below zero. Don't even think of measuring it. Let's establish where this 'spike' comes from.
-
So why then is it very unreasonable to assume, in line with well known circuit theory, that this counter electromotive force comes from the inductor?
It is not unreasonable to assume. In fact the counter electromotive force does come from the inductor. It was put there in the on cycle. It comes back in the off cycle. But you never get as much back as you put in. [:)]
Keep in mind that it is power that is conserved. Voltage is only potential. Power is voltage times current.
-
Vern - I'm so glad you're there. You're right. But I need someone to acknowledge that this counter electromotive force is only evident during the off period of each switching cycle.
Do you see I'm trying to master your own impeccable style of brevity? [:)]
Vern, or someone, please acknowledge this. Still holding my breath.
-
JerryGG38 - I've just heard from my co-author. He asked me to point out the following. He conducted his own tests on a TK TEKTRONIX TDS 3054B 4 channel 500Mhz with a sample rate of 5GS probes. Measurements on attenuation by 10. Also used a spectrum analysr LG rated at 5 x 4 GHtz. I think I've got that right. He's been following this thread but has no spare time to join in.
He duplicated the tests to determine the validity of the initial claim. We used the quantum test publication because it had the written permission of the accreditors.
-
It is very unreasonable to assume that the negative voltage (flat level) comes from the inductor. jerryGG38
Ok. Let me try this again. When the battery is disconnected - courtesy the switch and the MOSFET - then we find that there is a very large voltage. This is evident on the oscilloscope. I'm sure you will agree with me that it does not come from the battery. It is generally known as Back EMF - in motor driven circuits. We don't have a motor - so here it is, apparently and correctly referred to as counter electromotive force. This counter electromotive force is known to be caused by the field collapsing in inductive components in the circuit. The only outrageously inductive component in our circuit is the resistor. So why then is it very unreasonable to assume, in line with well known circuit theory, that this counter electromotive force comes from the inductor?
EDIT: Just ignore, for now, whether it is above or below zero. Don't even think of measuring it. Let's establish where this 'spike' comes from.
I assume that you are measuring the spike at the shunt resistor. Channel B on the scope. When the Mosfet opens up a voltage of 2 times the battery voltage will instanteously appear at the junction of D1 and Q1. As high as 48 volts is possible. this voltage is the sum of the battery voltage and the inductive spike voltage which can be as high as 24 volts also.
However the zener diode in the mosfet will pass this voltage to the shunt resistor. therefore the shunt resistor could see a spike of 48 volts minus the zener voltage. Let us say that the zener voltage is specified at 10 volts (each mosfet has different zeners)
Then the spike passing unto the shunt resistor would be 36 volts. In general due to stray capacitances it will be less than that.
Therefore the spike comes from the series circuit of the battery and the inductor. which flows through the mosfets zener diode.
At the same time, diode D1 starts to conduct and clamp the spike. You will get different answers for the spike value depending upon all the circuit parameters.Each circuit will produce different results depending upon their specifications.
-
So why then is it very unreasonable to assume, in line with well known circuit theory, that this counter electromotive force comes from the inductor?
It is not unreasonable to assume. In fact the counter electromotive force does come from the inductor. It was put there in the on cycle. It comes back in the off cycle. But you never get as much back as you put in. [:)]
Keep in mind that it is power that is conserved. Voltage is only potential. Power is voltage times current.
Vern you answered this too quickly. Energy is conserved. Voltage times current times time.
Also nothing is coming back in that circuit. The inductor charges up and diode D1 conducts. This causes the inductor energy to flow around a circle. It discharges unto itself and not the battery. The mosfet is open after the spike and the battery has no part of the discharge through the diode D1 and inductor.
-
JerryGG38 - I've just heard from my co-author. He asked me to point out the following. He conducted his own tests on a TK TEKTRONIX TDS 3054B 4 channel 500Mhz with a sample rate of 5GS probes. Measurements on attenuation by 10. Also used a spectrum analysr LG rated at 5 x 4 GHtz. I think I've got that right. He's been following this thread but has no spare time to join in.
He duplicated the tests to determine the validity of the initial claim. We used the quantum test publication because it had the written permission of the accreditors.
I am not familar with the latest scopes. It has been 16 years since I did any lab work. He mentions all high frequency stuff. Was it a sampling scope?
In any event I see no mention of a DC probe. It all appears as AC stuff. Therefore the entire electrical spectrum has been invalidated by the improper scope. You need just a simple DC scope and DC probe, not the fancy scope he used.
-
Ok JerryGG38 - then we're on the same page. But that voltage spike can and in fact does exceed 34 volts. It depends on the duty cycle. Now Vern is absolutely spot on. The amount of energy that is returned by the counter electromotive force may very well have been stored on the resistor in the first instance. And, also correct, is that it never seems to exceed the amount of energy that was first delivered during the ON period of the switching cycle. But here's the thing. It always returns some very small fraction less. Not much difference. If the duty cycle is on for 10% or 90% - however much energy is first stored is then returned - less that fraction in that spike. I'm sure you're right. It's probably because of the diode in the MOSFET or even the diode in parallel to the resistor - or, indeed, both.
So. If it was stored - or - if the energy that delivered the counter electromotive force was courtesy extra energy from the battery, then it would be evident how? We measure the voltage across the resistor - during the 'ON' period of the duty cycle to follow Ohm's Law. In other words the amount of voltage divided by the Ohm's value of the load resistor, over the time of the duty cycle, conforms to whatever would have been determined according the same measurement applied to a simple load placed in series with a battery without the complication of a switch.
So. If the energy was stored at some extra cost from the battery, where do we find this extra energy? Is it something that's there, but hidden?
-
Sorry Jerry - I've just seen your post. I should have added it was dc coupled. The spectrum analysis was done on a separate machine. Please give me an answer to the last post - you or Vern.
EDIT It's sampling range is 10 000 samples. I know this because it took forever to scroll down the XL page to get to the end. In other words you choose your range 1 waveform or any number required (0bviously within some limit, not sure what) and it will give you a sample range of 10 000 voltage measurements taken across that range.
-
These posts are coming too fast to cope with AND make the dinner! Yeah - I know - get your priorities right man!
witsend
My definition of charge is what you will find in all textbooks.
We have a serious problem if you refuse to do that because "they don't make sense" or some such reason. Every time you are pressed in the direction of 'knowing' some proper Science, you react badly. If you come on a Science Forum, then the least you could do is to get some fundamental knowledge of the common language we all try to speak. We can't be expected to adopt a special language for a 'one-off' discussion.
Tell me you don't really mean that "Energy is stored in the Resistance". Please tell me you mean "in the inductance of the resistOR".
Neither I nor jg38 would imply that you 'average' anything. The average of a sinewave is zero! That's why we use RMS. This means adding up all the I2R s (i.e. integrating), which gives a non zero value and corresponds to the sum of the energies during the infinitessimal instants over the time you are observing. The 'root two' factor which is commonly used refers to a sine wave and, for any other waveform is it either necessary to analyse in terms of the harmonic content or, in the case of your waveform, which doesn't have a fixed frequency (I gather?) then you have to RMS the samples.
The AC probe problem is well known, The mean value of what an AC probe shows you will be Zero because it will 'float' up or down until it is zero.
I have just noticed your comment that the spikes varied in appearance on the Scope. This sounds very much like the effects of under-sampling, which is something I suggested earlier. A 20MHz Scope is very 'slow' for RF work - it's main application would be for so-called video work. Sampling scopes are lovely as far as they go but their sharp cut off, due to the anti-aliasing filter means that you are totally blind above their specified operating frequency. A tired old analogue scope will give you glimpses of frequencies well above its 3dB point. If you cannot rely on the samples being correct then you can't do valid calculations with them.
jg38 (And Vern, who just wrote the same thing whilst I was cogitating)
I have just had second thoughts about the operation of the diode D1 when the Mosfet switches off. The only path for current to flow is, in fact, in a loop through the diode and the resistor RL. All the magnetic energy will be dissipated in the resistance. The Mosfet is off so the battery is no longer in circuit. That's correct, isn't it? How can charge return to the battery - apart from through some parasitic component? The Drain Source capacitance is a few thousand pF, according to the data sheet.
-
Sophicentaur, just quickly, I have not read through your post. I do mean resistor. It was an error. And I have been so careful not to take offense. I have NOT been OFFENDED in any way at all. If you're referring to the fact that JerryGG38 did not ask me directly - it is simply because I need to be involved in any discussion.
Where do you say that I've reacted badly. I am trying my very best to answer questions.
-
jg38
However the zener diode in the mosfet will pass this voltage to the shunt resistor. therefore the shunt resistor could see a spike of 48 volts minus the zener voltage. Let us say that the zener voltage is specified at 10 volts (each mosfet has different zeners)
The zener acts presents zero resistance for voltages in excess of its Vz. I think that you won't find a huge voltage across the 'shunt' resistor, the voltage will be IR, where I is, at most,the original current flowing and R is 0.25ohms. How could it be more than that, when 'held down' by such a low resistance? But the action of D1 should catch the voltage spike long before this happens - it only needs to be 0.7V above the potential of the + battery terminal for it to conduct all the current round through the Rl again.
-
witsend
When I say you have reacted badly, I mean badly for the discussion - you just say you don't understand the Science or the Maths, when it suits you but you expect everyone else to trust your judgment because it is obvious to you. Or, you bat on about conventional Science not being willing to listen and just being reactionary for the sake of it.
It really isn't the way to conduct a Scientific dialogue.
-
Ok JerryGG38 - then we're on the same page. But that voltage spike can and in fact does exceed 34 volts. It depends on the duty cycle. Now Vern is absolutely spot on. The amount of energy that is returned by the counter electromotive force may very well have been stored on the resistor in the first instance. And, also correct, is that it never seems to exceed the amount of energy that was first delivered during the ON period of the switching cycle. But here's the thing. It always returns some very small fraction less. Not much difference. If the duty cycle is on for 10% or 90% - however much energy is first stored is then returned - less that fraction in that spike. I'm sure you're right. It's probably because of the diode in the MOSFET or even the diode in parallel to the resistor - or, indeed, both.
So. If it was stored - or - if the energy that delivered the counter electromotive force was courtesy extra energy from the battery, then it would be evident how? We measure the voltage across the resistor - during the 'ON' period of the duty cycle to follow Ohm's Law. In other words the amount of voltage divided by the Ohm's value of the load resistor, over the time of the duty cycle, conforms to whatever would have been determined according the same measurement applied to a simple load placed in series with a battery without the complication of a switch.
So. If the energy was stored at some extra cost from the battery, where do we find this extra energy? Is it something that's there, but hidden?
I think the inductance has complicated the problem. You could have used a non-inductirve resistor for your experiment. The inductance merely adds complications but has little meaning for this circuit.
What was the value of discharge resistor for the battery. RL is ten ohms and the duty cycle was 3.7 percent as shown on page 5.
The corresponding draw down resistor should have been
R = (100/3.7) (10 ohms) = 270 ohms
A 270 ohm resistor across the battery should draw down the battery in the same time as your switching circuit. The inductance does not change the draw down very much.
What was the value of your draw down resistor???????
-
quote author=sophiecentaur link=topic=23243.msg257259#msg257259 date=1244654562]
jg38
However the zener diode in the mosfet will pass this voltage to the shunt resistor. therefore the shunt resistor could see a spike of 48 volts minus the zener voltage. Let us say that the zener voltage is specified at 10 volts (each mosfet has different zeners)
The zener acts presents zero resistance for voltages in excess of its Vz. I think that you won't find a huge voltage across the 'shunt' resistor, the voltage will be IR, where I is, at most,the original current flowing and R is 0.25ohms. How could it be more than that, when 'held down' by such a low resistance? But the action of D1 should catch the voltage spike long before this happens - it only needs to be 0.7V above the potential of the + battery terminal for it to conduct all the current round through the Rl again.
[/quote]
You are correct in general. I am just doing a worst case possibilitiy in which the shunt resistance and the wiritn path back to the battery has enought inductance to allow for such a large spike. The actual circuit will respond based upon many parameters. Most of the spiking will occur at the junction of D1 and Q1 and not at the shunt resistore.
However the whole discussion is meaningless. They will get the same results even if the resistor RL has no inductance whatsoever. I am afraid that the inductance spiking merely complicated a more basic error.
Right now I believe that the 3.7 duty cycle required a draw down resistor of 270 ohms to replace the switched 10 ohms. I just asked Witsend for the value of their draw down resistor. I think they used the wrong resistor.
-
If you cannot rely on the samples being correct then you can't do valid calculations with them. Sophiecentaur
I think that Spescom dealt with this problem in the paper. They got Fluke to send a guarantee that the instrument was capable of sampling within the frequency range that we were testing.
-
Vern you answered this too quickly. Energy is conserved. Voltage times current times time.
I realized I misspoke while at lunch.
-
If you cannot rely on the samples being correct then you can't do valid calculations with them. Sophiecentaur
I think that Spescom dealt with this problem in the paper. They got Fluke to send a guarantee that the instrument was capable of sampling within the frequency range that we were testing.
Fluke answered the question you asked them. It is not their job to tell you that it was not the right question to ask.
My question concerns the highest frequency in your waveforms. That requires an answer of the numerical kind. The relevant frequency is not the fundamental oscillation frequency of your circuit. It will be much higher. What is it?
-
These posts are coming too fast to cope with AND make the dinner! Yeah - I know - get your priorities right man!
Tell
jg38 (And Vern, who just wrote the same thing whilst I was cogitating)
I have just had second thoughts about the operation of the diode D1 when the Mosfet switches off. The only path for current to flow is, in fact, in a loop through the diode and the resistor RL. All the magnetic energy will be dissipated in the resistance. The Mosfet is off so the battery is no longer in circuit. That's correct, isn't it? How can charge return to the battery - apart from through some parasitic component? The Drain Source capacitance is a few thousand pF, according to the data sheet.
Ah ha. A few thousand pf. Yes. When you have a high accuracy analog to digital converter a few thousand pf hurts.
As far as the scope is concerned, a 20 MHz scope is too powerful for this simple circuit. We are only dealing with 2.4 KHz. If you go 100 times all your need is a 0.25 MHz scope for good results. It won't show up the small spikes through the mosfet but who cares???????
A 60 year old scope with 1 MHz would be far too good for this circuit.
It looks like an old fashioned simpson voltmeter would work just as well.
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.
-
We look to use inductive resistors to ensure that there is counter electromotive force. However, to the best of my knowledge, the only non-inductive resistors used were for the shunt.
What was the value of discharge resistor for the battery. RL is ten ohms and the duty cycle was 3.7 percent as shown on page 5.
The corresponding draw down resistor should have been
R = (100/3.7) (10 ohms) = 270 ohms
A 270 ohm resistor across the battery should draw down the battery in the same time as your switching circuit. The inductance does not change the draw down very much.jerryGG38
I do not know what a corresponding draw down resistor is. But if you mean a control then we did not use a control for the experiment as we were advised that battery draw down rates were meaningless. However, we did these type of tests for BP. And also, the rate at which our battery discharged in the experiment in that paper was indeed consistent with that amperage draw down.
What was the value of your draw down resistor???????
What resistor?
-
Sorry Witsend. I cannot stop laughing!!! Sorry to offend but I cannot stop laughing.
Not at all. Glad to know your at least amused.
-
Vern you answered this too quickly. Energy is conserved. Voltage times current times time.
I realized I misspoke while at lunch.
I am beginning to get punchdrunk from this discussion. Right now I cannot stop laughing
-
jg38
I think the inductance has complicated the problem. You could have used a non-inductirve resistor for your experiment. The inductance merely adds complications but has little meaning for this circuit.
I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Of course it would have made sense to buy (for a couple of quid) a high quality non-inductive resistor as a control. But there a lot of other things that could have been done in order to isolate the flaws and to account for the anomaly (Occam's Razor). I don't think the exercise was aimed in that direction, though.
AND you didn't read the info about the free-running frequency, which was about 150kHz!!
Really, I've got time to do the dinner PLUS read all the facts. I multitask so well I could be a woman!
It strikes me that the people who helped you with this venture, witsend, may not have been as commited as you were. It is much easier to agree with someone who is fired with enthusiasm than to dig deep into the theory and spot the flaw.
-
Sophiecentaur and JerryGG38 - make up your minds. Nothing is fast enough for Sophiecentaur and everything is too fast for JerryGG38. The assurance we had was that the accuracy of the flukemeter was adequate for the frequency of the experiment.
May I please have an answer from someone regarding the question - if energy was first stored in the load resistor, then where do we find that extra energy. The voltage measured across the load resistor conforms to Ohm's Law.
-
We look to use inductive resistors to ensure that there is counter electromotive force. However, to the best of my knowledge, the only non-inductive resistors used were for the shunt.
What was the value of discharge resistor for the battery. RL is ten ohms and the duty cycle was 3.7 percent as shown on page 5.
The corresponding draw down resistor should have been
R = (100/3.7) (10 ohms) = 270 ohms
A 270 ohm resistor across the battery should draw down the battery in the same time as your switching circuit. The inductance does not change the draw down very much.jerryGG38
I do not know what a corresponding draw down resistor is. But if you mean a control then we did not use a control for the experiment as we were advised that battery draw down rates were meaningless. However, we did these type of tests for BP. And also, the rate at which our battery discharged in the experiment in that paper was indeed consistent with that amperage draw down.
What was the value of your draw down resistor???????
What resistor?
Something is wrong. You have a circuit which turns on and off at a 3.7 percent duty cycle. Since the load resistor was 10 ohms, the circuit basically looks like a 270 ohm resistor to the battery.
If you connect the circuit to one battery and at the same time connect a 270 ohm resistor to another sister battery, both batteries should draw down about the same rate. Then you can compare how much better the switching circuit did compared to its equivalent 270 ohm resister. The switching circuit should discharge the battery faster than the 270 ohm resistor.,
That is a very simple test. Ultimately the inductance means nothing to the switching circuit. The circuit is ultimately a 270 ohm resistor.
-
jg38
I think the inductance has complicated the problem. You could have used a non-inductirve resistor for your experiment. The inductance merely adds complications but has little meaning for this circuit.
I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Of course it would have made sense to buy (for a couple of quid) a high quality non-inductive resistor as a control. But there a lot of other things that could have been done in order to isolate the flaws and to account for the anomaly (Occam's Razor). I don't think the exercise was aimed in that direction, though.
AND you didn't read the info about the free-running frequency, which was about 150kHz!!
Really, I've got time to do the dinner PLUS read all the facts. I multitask so well I could be a woman!
It strikes me that the people who helped you with this venture, witsend, may not have been as commited as you were. It is much easier to agree with someone who is fired with enthusiasm than to dig deep into the theory and spot the flaw.
But the funny thing is that the circuit works the same if we had an inductor or just a resistor. The measurements would be the same. So let them repeat the same experiment using only a resistor as a test. If the results are the same,then the problem is the experimental measurements. Which it is.
-
Something is wrong. You have a circuit which turns on and off at a 3.7 percent duty cycle. Since the load resistor was 10 ohms, the circuit basically looks like a 270 ohm resistor to the battery.
If you connect the circuit to one battery and at the same time connect a 270 ohm resistor to another sister battery, both batteries should draw down about the same rate. Then you can compare how much better the switching circuit did compared to its equivalent 270 ohm resister. The switching circuit should discharge the battery faster than the 270 ohm resistor.,
That is a very simple test. Ultimately the inductance means nothing to the switching circuit. The circuit is ultimately a 270 ohm resistor.jerryGG38
Yes indeed. You've got it in one. We did those tests for BP. Over and over and over. It took us more than 5 weeks - working late into the night. Indescribably boring.
BUT when we wanted to include them for the article in QUANTUM we were specifically advised by ALL AND SUNDRY that to compare battery draw down rates, under any circumstances whatsover, would be of no value because battery vagaries were such that any reference to this as PROOF of anythig at all would be meaningless.
-
May I please have an answer from someone regarding the question - if energy was first stored in the load resistor, then where do we find that extra energy. The voltage measured across the load resistor conforms to Ohm's Law.
this is copied from further down. Please could someone answer this question.
-
May I please have an answer from someone regarding the question - if energy was first stored in the load resistor, then where do we find that extra energy. The voltage measured across the load resistor conforms to Ohm's Law.
this is copied from further down. Please could someone answer this question.
Unfortunately we are discussing experimental errors while we are not there to observe the experiment. All we are doing it looking for the errors. You are going to have to have your friend and coauthor to study what we have said and to look for the errors himself.
I pointed out that you should have used a 270 ohm resistor. You said you did. However first you did not know what resistor to use. Then you said that others denied that such a technique was satisfactory. We are going around in circles.
You are unwilling to admit that an error was made. I know you spent a lot of time on this project but an error was made. You have to rely upon others to admit an error was made but they will not admit it.
In anay event I am tired of this topic. How about posting your ideas on current flow. Or should I start the topic?
-
I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Sophiecentaur
The whole point was to use the counter electromotive force from an inductive resistor. I really did not think that anyone needed to be persuaded about the properties of counter electromotive force. That has never been an issue until Jerry discounted its contribution to the experiment.
-
I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Sophiecentaur
The whole point was to use the counter electromotive force from an inductive resistor. I really did not think that anyone needed to be persuaded about the properties of counter electromotive force. That has never been an issue until Jerry discounted its contribution to the experiment.
Yes because I believe you will get the same data with or without any inductance.
-
JerryGG38 I'm also tired of this. And I'd love to start a new thread. But I know now that people use this forum to get ideas. I'd love someone - need never know who - to duplicate the experiment. So. In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, please replicate the experiment detailed in this attached blog. There are no patents, the device may very well be useable, and, in the outside chance that academics read this - please let your students test it. It has some interesting effects that appear to fly in the face of classical prediction.
That the contributors to this forum assume errors is entirely understandable. And that there are errors in the experiemnt is more than likely probable. But the fact is that the experiment itself will reveal the errors - if they are there. And thus far, read the paper, some really well qualified electrical engineers have not been able to find the fault on the circuit.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
And please, please, jerryGG38 and Sophiecentaur, please let this be the last post so that any trawlers may still learn the object of the original post. That you disagree is your right - and I've stressed this. You are in good company. But indulge me. Let others also have a chance to argue this, hopefully from the experimental evidence rather than from assumed results.
EDIT - Sophiecentaur I've answered your question in this thread. I said that the energy levels comprise zipons.
-
EDIT - what I'm actually asking is this. Do you know of any lead acid battery that is able to deliver a negative current flow?
Yes
ANY lead-acid cell that is being CHARGED!
I am still waiting for some help with these Hydrogen Lines. Do you know what I am referring to? I am sure that you must know as your hypothesis claims to be so all-embracing.
It may help to convince all these new readers you are hoping for.
-
I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Sophiecentaur
The whole point was to use the counter electromotive force from an inductive resistor. I really did not think that anyone needed to be persuaded about the properties of counter electromotive force. That has never been an issue until Jerry discounted its contribution to the experiment.
Yes because I believe you will get the same data with or without any inductance.
I think you are right. The offset depends entirely on the duty cycle, in the end. It's a matter of peak to mean ratio, I think.
Amongst other things, it isn't clear what the duty cycle is for the waveform when it settles down to its free running condition (at the higher frequency). The spikes would be very narrow, compared with the 5μs which I understand was the period of oscillation. The time constant associated with the 10μH inductor and the 100pF of the Mosfet is 10^-13s but the speed of operation is, I think 1V/ns - which implies pulses in the order of 20ns width. That could imply a duty cycle in the region of 20ns/5μs or less than 1/100. Plenty of opportunity for a huge peak to mean ratio or "over unity".
-
I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Sophiecentaur
The whole point was to use the counter electromotive force from an inductive resistor. I really did not think that anyone needed to be persuaded about the properties of counter electromotive force. That has never been an issue until Jerry discounted its contribution to the experiment.
Yes because I believe you will get the same data with or without any inductance.
I think you are right. The offset depends entirely on the duty cycle, in the end. It's a matter of peak to mean ratio, I think.
Amongst other things, it isn't clear what the duty cycle is for the waveform when it settles down to its free running condition (at the higher frequency). The spikes would be very narrow, compared with the 5μs which I understand was the period of oscillation. The time constant associated with the 10μH inductor and the 100pF of the Mosfet is 10^-13s but the speed of operation is, I think 1V/ns - which implies pulses in the order of 20ns width. That could imply a duty cycle in the region of 20ns/5μs or less than 1/100. Plenty of opportunity for a huge peak to mean ratio or "over unity".
I am glad Witsend has a new post. Some of her ideas are very good and interesting to discuss.
the big problem with the circuit is that I have been a design engineer from 17.5 years to 55 years. Now I am a handyman. The circuit she used has been used over the ages in many forms. In the defense business similar circuits have been used where extreme accuracy was required. Near perfect capacitors, inductors, resistors, high speed diodes etc. Any strange over energy result would have been picked up immediately. An error of one part in 10,000 for any reason would have had the best engineers and some physicists studying why that occurred.
There is nothing strange occurring in that circuit. I just work with a calculator but the circuit analysis guys model everything. If they have problems then they ask me to find a strange solution. I always find something out of the ordinary. These circuits never gave us trouble.
Anyway I like some of Witsends ideas. The circuit is a meaningless exercise and she wants to call it quits so hopefully we will all forget it.
Yes you came up with many good points. However the poor horse has been beaten to death. I know she still believe in it but perhaps her friends will see the error of their ways. Perhaps they are just too embarashed to say so.
-
I agree.
See you on another thread.
-
JerryGG38 I'm also tired of this. And I'd love to start a new thread. But I know now that people use this forum to get ideas. I'd love someone - need never know who - to duplicate the experiment. So. In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, please replicate the experiment detailed in this attached blog. There are no patents, the device may very well be useable, and, in the outside chance that academics read this - please let your students test it. It has some interesting effects that appear to fly in the face of classical prediction.
That the contributors to this forum assume errors is entirely understandable. And that there are errors in the experiemnt is more than likely probable. But the fact is that the experiment itself will reveal the errors - if they are there. And thus far, read the paper, some really well qualified electrical engineers have not been able to find the fault on the circuit.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
And please, please, jerryGG38 and Sophiecentaur, please let this be the last post so that any trawlers may still learn the object of the original post. That you disagree is your right - and I've stressed this. You are in good company. But indulge me. Let others also have a chance to argue this, hopefully from the experimental evidence rather than from assumed results.
Ive posted this again.
-
I've copied this from another thread. Hope it's allowed.
You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?Jerrygg38
I can. And I don't have brains. I just have an edge. So does everyone who tries to work out problems for themselves. If you only hear one side of an argument there's no discussion. The trained scientist has only heard one side of an argument supported, he believes by empirical proof. Well. I of all people know how anxious the scientific community are to test their hypotheses Laws, and general paradigms. I have seen how happy they are to look at empirical proof in experimental data. I have a really, really simple electric circuit that repeatedly delivers energy efficiencies that boggle the mind and blow the unity barrier into the dark ages. If empirical proof is everything - then go and test it.
Read through the thread again on that circuit. Where did all that critical arrogance come from? I only asked people to check some numbers out. And the sad part is - THAT reaction is typical. Par for the course. It seems that one can question anything in this world today. We've finally enjoyed a sort of inalienable, international, constitutional right to speak our minds. We can question the existence of God. We can question the wisdom of our leaders. And we can even question justice. These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications. And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much. So it also tests ones tolerance. But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST. Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season.
Fortunately there are also those out there who still like to look at alternative ideas. I just wish they'd also look at alternative experiments.
-
I've copied this from another thread. Hope it's allowed.
You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?Jerrygg38
I can. And I don't have brains. I just have an edge. So does everyone who tries to work out problems for themselves. If you only hear one side of an argument there's no discussion. The trained scientist has only heard one side of an argument supported, he believes by empirical proof. Well. I of all people know how anxious the scientific community are to test their hypotheses Laws, and general paradigms. I have seen how happy they are to look at empirical proof in experimental data. I have a really, really simple electric circuit that repeatedly delivers energy efficiencies that boggle the mind and blow the unity barrier into the dark ages. If empirical proof is everything - then go and test it.
Read through the thread again on that circuit. Where did all that critical arrogance come from? I only asked people to check some numbers out. And the sad part is - THAT reaction is typical. Par for the course. It seems that one can question anything in this world today. We've finally enjoyed a sort of inalienable, international, constitutional right to speak our minds. We can question the existence of God. We can question the wisdom of our leaders. And we can even question justice. These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications. And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much. So it also tests ones tolerance. But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST. Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season.
Fortunately there are also those out there who still like to look at alternative ideas. I just wish they'd also look at alternative experiments.
You are not questioning scientists with this circuit. Since it is a standard circuit which has been used and produced millions of times before, the results are quite well known. Thousands of engineers and technicians have built this circuit. It is not a new circuit. It is a standard circuit.
Standard circuits are subject to circuit analysis. They are studied in great detail. In all the millions of times the circuit has been measured and studied, no one except yourself has come to these strange conclusions.
I have studied the circuit. In general circuit analysis is sufficient to understand the circuit in question. Things deviate very little from circuit analysis. There are computer programs in which you can put the circuit parameters in and get the answers out.
When you discuss your theory of the universe, that is a different issue because non of us have all the answers. We are all struggling to find answers.
When you discuss standard circuits, you are discussing nuts and bolts engineering, not science theories. You said you were finished with this topic but you seem to want to continue discussing a non-scientifc engineering issue. It is just a garden variety simple electrical problem which can be answered on some groups which specialize in electrical problems. This forum is for the discussion of complex theories. It is not for the discussion of technical high school such as Brooklyn Tech HS or Community college level circuit discussions. At most college electrical course EE 101. The people who worked on this for you must have gotten a D grade in the course. They are totally wacked out. Or they are just having fun with you!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
This forum is for the discussion of complex theories. It is not for the discussion of technical high school such as Brooklyn Tech HS or Community college level circuit discussions.
I disagree - this forum is for discussion of science, scientists, technology and engineering at whatever level people require. You may not wish to discuss such things, but please don't speak for the forum as a whole...
-
This forum is for the discussion of complex theories. It is not for the discussion of technical high school such as Brooklyn Tech HS or Community college level circuit discussions.
I disagree - this forum is for discussion of science, scientists, technology and engineering at whatever level people require. You may not wish to discuss such things, but please don't speak for the forum as a whole...
Ok. You have been here much longer than me. I guess I just got tired when W said she was finished discussing the circuit and then started it up again.
-
We can question the wisdom of our leaders. And we can even question justice. These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications. And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much. So it also tests ones tolerance. But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST. Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season.
I understand how you would feel this way, but it is not really so. We question scientists all the time. That is what scientists do best. We question everything; then when we are certain we have found reality, we question it again. Einstein questioned QM theorists and thought their notion of superposition was absurd, for example.
-
I just checked the internet again. It seems that there are a lot of demonstrations proving over unity results. In one the instructor keeps moving the magnet with his hand. Without a closer study it appears that his hand energy is doing the job.
They all look funny. It is just a shell game using phony science. I guess it is a modern form of the medicine man. The perpetrators of the frauds like the attention. Perhaps some sucker others into putting up money. However I suspect that there are a lot of people who enjoy their talking coconuts.
-
PS> They even have a talk group
OverUnity.com
Evidently there are thousands of circuits and millions of ideas. I guess it has a pop-culture following. Is it an outgrowth of star-treck? What does Shatner have to say about it?
-
Interesting; I just checked it out; maybe witsend is a member.
-
Interesting; I just checked it out; maybe witsend is a member.
I imagine Witsend got these ideas somewhere. She has a lot of company. Maybe they even have a magazine.
In any event, Witsend keeps wanting people to try her ideas. It looks like there are millions of people who have tried her ideas and similar ideas. She should discuss her ideas with all these millions of over unity cult followers. Perhaps it is the new religion of the future.
-
No. I'm not a member - but I know there's a forum - somewhere - that's got threads on my circuit. It's great. Really entertaining reading. But I can't for the life of me find it again. If I do I'll let you know.
-
No. I'm not a member - but I know there's a forum - somewhere - that's got threads on my circuit. It's great. Really entertaining reading. But I can't for the life of me find it again. If I do I'll let you know.
It is OverUnity.com (http://OverUnity.com)
-
I've just looked. Where?
Vern - where do I find the thread on my device? I've just looked. Is it under something specific?
-
It is a link. Just click it. Click Here (http://OverUnity.com)
-
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
-
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?
-
I didn't see your circuit but there were similar ones there.
Tom Bearden has a list (http://www.cheniere.org/misc/oulist.htm) of over-unity devices.
"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
-
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.
-
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.
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!
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.cheniere.org/misc/oulist.htm) 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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hi Vern. I'm knee deep again. But am dying to talk to you about this. I'll catch up later.
-
. . . . . . .
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
Hi Rosey. Thanks for your advice.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
You are not confronting Science - you are ignoring it by not getting to understand it. That is the arrogant bit; assuming you know best when you haven't understood the alternative.
(As you haven't sufficiently explained you alternative, the reverse can't be said of your critics.)
I think you ought to direct your 'sensitivity' in the direction of the messages you have been getting rather than in taking offense at the fact that people have been disagreeing with you. I /we didn't start off being so blunt about what you have to say. The initial reactions have always been very polite.
Make a decision, either to learn some Science which can give you the tools to make progress in the subject or take up Fantasy Fiction, which is great fun and a place where no one will knock your ideas, if they're original.
btw, there are a number of definitions of trolling. I would say your contributions are not deliberately mischievous - more self indulgent.
-
Sophiecentaur - I went to some considerable trouble to explain myself as clearly as I could. I wish you would simply address those questions and points instead of reverting to another character bashing exercise.
And quite frankly unless you do address those points there's no point in discussing anything. It loses the benefits of a discussion to become an exercise in trolling, if that's the right term. Whatever it is, I do not think it applies to me. I have raised questions that have plagued me. These are the same questions from some highly qualified electrical engineers, albeit they would, no doubt, ask the questions more appropriately and with more evident skill. It is a tribute to their intellectual honesty that they ask it at all. I think it is fair to say that we, and not only I, want expert comment to explain these results. They made that explicity evident in their permission to use their names as accreditors.
May I be so bold as to make a suggestion. Try and keep your comments applicable to questions and answers instead of to wide sweeping dismissive accounts of my character - my lack of knowledge - or to any other points that are entirely irrelevant to the question.
Otherwise may I recommend that you simply do not follow my threads. Clearly they exasperate you. And I have it on good authority that I can ask these questions and address these points even though you may find them offensive. Your right to answer them or not, is unquestionable. But I certainly question your right to tell me what to do with my interests the more so as the implication is that I live in some sort of 'fantasy land'.
I do not know if there is a readership to this thread. But if there is - then my eternal hope is that trawlers, as Vern describes them, will either explain where the error is, or will replicate the test. The bonanza would be if they are, themselves, academics. That way, with luck, they may replicate the test. Either way, I win.
I am just so sorry that you find my contribution so offensive. The more so as it seems I've lost out on the opportunity of either a chance at an objective overview of the results - or alternatively a chance to encourage you to test the device for yourself.
Clearly I'm a bad marketer.
-
Sorry, witsend. The deal with forums is that, whilst you are allowed to expound your theory... sophiecentaur's allowed to comment on it.
Unfortunately, whilst in general sweeping comments on a poster's character or background are to be frowned upon, I agree with him that here your lack of any grounding in conventional science is entirely relevant, especially since you say you've been engaged with this for some years and yet don't see why the fact that you don't know what a capacitor is might be a reason for others not to take you seriously.
-
Sorry, witsend. The deal with forums is that, whilst you are allowed to expound your theory... sophiecentaur's allowed to comment on it.
Rosey
Where have I denied him that right?
And regarding my knowledge or otherwise of capacitors, nor do I know a thousand different electrical components and devices. That does not make me unable to understand current flow, elecromagnetic interactions, gravitational forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces - and on and on. I'm a good gardner. I do not know all the names of the plants - certainly not their botanical names. I'm also a really good bridge player. But I have never read books on Bridge.
-
And regarding my knowledge or otherwise of capacitors, nor do I know a thousand different electrical components and devices. That does not make me unable to understand current flow,
It actually does. If you don't know how the circuit that you were working on functions then your comments about it can hardly be valid, can they? As for knowing what a capacitor is; there are just three basic, passive, components - resistors, inductors and capacitors and inductors are in the small minority. It is hardly a good start if you don't know of the existence of what constitutes nearly half of the passive components used. What can you know of electromagnetic interactions if you are not aware that capacity is as important as inductance and resistance?
A good gardener can get good results which are repeatable under many circumstances. There is no doubt about what constitutes a good crop of beans. What you are doing with this electronics exercise is the equivalent of claiming that your bean plant produced pineapples - and grew up into the sky and you found a giant there.
You presumably can name all the suits of a pack of cards and know how many cards there are in each suit. And, without some basic knowledge of the game you wouldn't be a successful player. The same goes for Science, I'm afraid.
Either way, I win.
Does that imply that, either way, you will be proved right?
You ask me for specific answers to specific questions. I have actually given you several detailed replies to direct questions.
I have asked you one specific question about the Hydrogen lines, several times, but you have not even acknowledged it - let alone answered it. That would be the acid test for you ideas. Do you understand the question?
-
Sophiecentaur - I do not understand the question. Do you want me to list the different lines in the Lyman line series? Do you want an explanation for their absorbtion levels - or how they're identified by their colour which I believe moves from infra red to ultra violet? Or are you asking which levels are occupied by which electrons in the Hydrogen, Deuterium, Tritium types?
This is a really strange question. The answers are readily googled. If I need to answer this to satisfy you that I know something about science - then you've set me an absurdly simple test and I really cannot see how it proves anything at all. Did you do this as a third year or post grad student that you're so interested? I would have thought my understanding of physics would be better challenged on that circuit.
But why must I waste my time trying to convince you that I understand hydrogen lines and their existence? Surely everyone knows?
-
Just to help clear things up...
I think he was asking how your theory would predict and justify those lines, rather than just asking you to give the currently accepted ideas.
-
Hi BenV. I'm always surprised to see that you're actually always there - monitoring. It's comforting.
Yes indeed. I believe that these lines are formed by zipons which are magnetic particles that move in fields, velocity of 2c and dipoles so have neutral charges. I've explained how these energy levels actually separate from the flux of nebulae at the early genesis of hydrogen atoms in those fields. I then suggest that these fields, these energy levels are the final composition in the fusion of three electrons that form the hydrogen atom. The proposal is that the number of these zipons has a correspondence to the actual mass of the hydrogen atom. I've also suggested that their existence, these energy levels enable the hydrogen atom to operate as a truly closed system outside the primary field of the universe. I've explained it all in my blog but also, possibly more briefly, in the thread on 10 dimensional binary system
-
Ah, I have your attention.
What I am asking is that you, in order to establish the credibility of your theory of everything, should derive, using that theory from first principles, the frequencies of radiation that you would expect a Hydrogen atom to produce.
The reason I choose that particular exercise is that it is pretty much the most elementary problem which quantum mechanics deals with. It was, as I remember, something we did in the second year and is a standard bit of bookwork in a Physics course. It 'proves' the pudding of early Quantum Physics by putting in known values and getting out predicted values which correspond to subsequent measurement. It is the sort of test to which a theory must be subjected before it can be taken seriously - and it passed.
So, given the measured values of masses, charges etc, of anything you need to quote (the ones in the book will do) can you use your theory to show what the actual frequencies would be?
To be a proper 'theory' it would be essential that your hypothesis would yield the correct (numerical)results. I don't think that you can have grasped the importance of the boring little details like numbers. All the data is available - you just need to show how your idea links them together. A very reasonable request, I'm sure you 'd agree.
Alternatively, you could always apply some quantitative analysis to this circuit of yours and show why it should work in the way you think you have observed and why your magic explanation is preferable to the possibility of a measurement error. From what you say, however, the electronics could get in the way.
[spelling edit]
-
I will gladly do both. But the explanation of the current flow can come in this thread and the reconciliation of the frequencies evident in Lyman lines come come in the 10 dimensional binary system. But Vernon is helping me with that exercise and I'm still not ready to get to the nitty grits of the subject. I will gladly get there - in due course. But I'm a plodder. As I've explained. And I'm still establishing an overview. I won't be hurried. However I will take the trouble of explaing the circuit analysis. Unfortunately will have to do that tonight as I must get onto the trading floor.
-
I look forward to hearing from you.
-
Sophiecentaur, I've just spoken to my co-author. I am going to write up my take of current flow and he is going to draw the distiction between mine and classical understanding.
Unfortunately his time constraints are pretty extreme. He needs the better part of a week to get the time to do this. So, if you don't mind waiting. Otherwise I can give my own description pro tem but then must ask that you make allowances for any comparisons that may not be precisely classical. The choice is yours.
-
Start off with a few numbers. That will be interesting.
-
Start off with a few numbers. That will be interesting. Sophiecentaur
I have just read through this entire thread which was fortunate as it served to remind me that your objects in relation to this circuit and my field model are hardly constructive. Have you ever looked back at the things you've said to me and about me? I would have to be hopelessly naive to think that either the experiment or the model may be of interest to you.
I was prepared to take up your challenge until I saw this cryptic suggestion. And you accuse me of arrogance? Where was your 'thank you for the trouble of not only exhausting your own efforts but also of soliciting your co-author's efforts'? A courteous, 'actually do whatever is most convenient' would have been nice. Even an honest 'thanks, but I'm not that interested'.
You may post whatever nasty thing you like about me. I have no intention of ever answering them. And I certainly will not jump through hoops to satisfy some imaginary standard of excellence that you arbitrarily impose on my contributions. I have no respect for your judgement coloured as it is by your compulsive need to 'put me down'.
-
You say that you have a new theory. If you want it to be accepted, you need to demonstrate it's validity in more ways than just giving assurances.
As you have announced it to the World, I assume that you meant it to be read - no, scrutinized. If you have, as you say, read the whole of this thread, you will see that my early comments were very civil. Your answers have been moe and more evasive and my responses have been more and more exasperated. You have taken offense.
None of this would have happened if you had given straight answers.
The reason for your non existent and vague answers can either be because you want to keep your knowledge secret or because you have nothing concrete to say.
I have called your bluff, in a very polite way, and you have flown off the handle. I can only conclude that you cannot give a proper answer.
I should not have to ask "pretty please" for a Scientific explanation. If you had an answer , you should be desperate to give the world a visible response to a reasonable challenge.
Tell you what- pretend that someone other than I made that challenge. Answer them without an emotional outburst- just some honest Science. Prove to the World that the King has clothes on.
-
If there are any readers who are interested in this effect and would like to understand my model - I am attempting to explain it in the thread 'The universe as a 10 dimensional binary system'. My model actually requires an over unity result on a flyback circuit. And from what I see in other forums it appears to be a phenomenon that is becoming ever more apparent.
The object of this thread was to afford interested parties an opportunity to evaluate and replicate a circuit that gives unequivocal results of overunity. It may, however be due to some incorrect measurement or incorrect analysis of those measurements. But we have been entirely unable to find that error. If - in replication - this can be demonstrated to be wrong then this would be welcome. Discussion on this subject appears to generate nothing but exasperation from parties at both sides of this claim. And discussion is entirely irrelevant as the proof can only be evaluated through measurements on the circuit itself.
-
So I'll take that as a No, then?
But, here's another question. What is your strict definition of 'over unity'?
(In your own words, if possible).
-
Everybody who's followed this thread - you'll see reference in it to Overunity Dot Com - as the forum discussing our circuit. In point of fact I've joined another forum called Energetic forum. They've been studying our little circuit with some interest and there are some who have already duplicated. Not precise - but close. Here's the link. You may be interested in following it.
Kindest regards,
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html
-
Hi everyone. I rescued this thread from page 4.
Check out this link. My circuit experiment has finally been replicated. Eat your heart out SophieCentaur.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-98.html
Oh the difference between the enquiring mind and the closed mind.
EDIT We've also been invited to resubmit a paper on this. What fun. Vern. I hope you get to read this.
-
Do you remember the first reply you got.
It was from me and it said "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."
I'm still waiting.
-
Hi Bored chemist. I also am not sure that we've got OU. But we definitely have a really high co-efficiency of performance. And that's also useable. Also it defies classical prediction so may be of some intest.
But my object here isn't to gloat. Truth is that without the talents of the experimenter - FuzzyTomCat - I would also be doubting that original claim. It was a fraught few months. But I'm sure that even the likes of you would not deny the potential value of this. Add to that the fact that it's open source - unpatentable and relatively easily applied - then I think it may indeed be a really good thing.
-
Guys just a quick word. We've submitted a paper to the IEEE
have fun here Sophiecentaur,
Kindest R
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
-
I've copied this from a new thread I started - WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHITY Just so badly need to reference this because I'm more than a little angered - in retrospect - at the reception of this thread. It's what I think of mainstream scientists and I sincerely believe it needs saying. So. Vern, Rosie, Bored Chemist - what kind of an example do you guys give to the reception of new ideas?
Guys - not sure what the readership will be to this thread. But I just want to detail a few things. I had a demo that developed anomalous heat signatures on a resistive load. Crashed through the unity barrier and exprimentally evident. Couldn't get a single academic to attend a demonstration of the circuit. So I took it to industry. 5 public companies accredited the results. One of the 5 offered our local university a bursary award to take the study further. Offer was declined and the claim to have exceeded unity - continued to be ignored by our learned and revered. MTN Sciencentre asked for the demo to show it to an international group of scientists at a conference. Not one person from the conference attended that 5 day demo. Tried to get it published in a reviewed magazine. Could only get it into a technical journal. Tried again 6 years later and was rejected without review by IET. Accepted for review at the IEEE but rejected by reviewers on consensus with the added comment that it may not be represented.
I posted on the naked science forum and was hounded by several contributors who went to some trouble to describe my delusions. I was invited and joined a second forum whose contributors tried to replicate the experiment. Couple were successful. We went to the trouble to write a paper and I posted a link on the previous thread in this forum to advise the thread contributors. Not one person has commented on the submitted paper, the evidence of the full replicated experiment, the significance of the result, nor the possible outcome of the submission. This, notwithstanding the extraordinary outcry that any such claim could ever be taken seriously or even be half way correct.
So here we have a forum and a thread, apparently designated to 'new theories' where - having posted a new theory I'm hounded out of the house, and when the results or replication are positive - not one comment for or against that open source replication effort. Extraordinary. It speaks to the kind of contributor here who is only, apparently, inclined to victimise any contributor who dare, in good faith, present a seminally new idea. Not good, guys. Not good at all. Plenty to say before replication. Now nothing? Is it only required that initiating contributors acknowledge that they were wrong? Are the attackers appropriate in ignoring the evidence? And why is no-one that interested. These tests turn classical physics on its head? Why this extraordinary lack of interest? I'm intrigued. It seems that 'new ideas' thread is a misnomer - designed to subject the unsuspecting to a full on attack from mainstream bigots who reflect academic bigotry with the added flair for discouraging original thought. [???] [::)]
-
OK, I can't be bothered to look through all that. It's not very clearly written
However I note that you make reference to the "true RMS" reading Fluke 87 meter.
It's only specified as true RMS for crest factors up to 6 and I think, from looking at the waveforms in the screenshots, that you are exceding that by a considerable margin.
Please ask the people who did the work to confirm that the equipment was suitable for the measurements; in particular please calculate the crest factors (at least roughly) for the quantities measured with that meter.
-
OK, I can't be bothered to look through all that. It's not very clearly written
However I note that you make reference to the "true RMS" reading Fluke 87 meter.
It's only specified as true RMS for crest factors up to 6 and I think, from looking at the waveforms in the screenshots, that you are exceding that by a considerable margin.
Please ask the people who did the work to confirm that the equipment was suitable for the measurements; in particular please calculate the crest factors (at least roughly) for the quantities measured with that meter.
Golly Bored chemist. I have no idea what you're talking about? What is not clearly written? If you're referring to the paper KINDLY ADVISE WHERE IT IS NOT CLEAR? NOWHERE do we calculate crest factors with a multimeter. We use the data dumps from a Tektronix 3054C Oscilloscope - sample range of 10 000 per screen shot. What are you reading? Clearly it's not the paper that you access through that link. The only thing we used the Fluke for was to measure the battery voltage - to get an independent reading. What is wrong with you?
-
Why make the fuss about a true RMS reading meter if you are just using it to measure a battery voltage?
-
Hi Bored chemist. What fuss?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Can you tell me how you arrived at the circuit to test your model?
-
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.
-
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. "
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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. :-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.