0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
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, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms.
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.
j38The 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.
Conservatism (small c) is essential or Science would be dissipating itself up blind alleys all the time.
Basically, I'm with you Vern.
What I read was the Abstract which specifies"Counter Electromotive force enables overunity results in electric systems."
I see that your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued!Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/06/2009 23:20:43 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.
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.
Quote from: sophiecentaur on 09/06/2009 16:57:13I see that your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued!Quote from: jerrygg38 on 08/06/2009 23:20:43 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?
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.
That's why I put this circuit together.
As I have said before, you hypothesis needs to explain everything else too, if it is correct. SophiecentaurAt the risk of attack. I believe it does.
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?
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.
Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. SophiecentaurHad 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.
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.
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.
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?