a circuit that produces overunity results.

  • 372 Replies
  • 99690 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

witsend

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« 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. 






« Last Edit: 04/06/2009 18:42:21 by witsend »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #1 on: 26/05/2009 15:41:27 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #2 on: 26/05/2009 15:44:28 »
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

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #3 on: 26/05/2009 18:02:48 »
Quote from: the link posted by witsend
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.

Quote
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.


« Last Edit: 26/05/2009 18:11:12 by Vern »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #4 on: 26/05/2009 18:11:44 »
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.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #5 on: 26/05/2009 18:20:42 »
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.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #6 on: 26/05/2009 18:54:03 »
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?

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #7 on: 26/05/2009 19:17:03 »
'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?
« Last Edit: 26/05/2009 19:42:49 by witsend »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #8 on: 26/05/2009 19:32:33 »
I did not find anything in the paper about the experiment.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #9 on: 26/05/2009 19:35:01 »
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.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #10 on: 26/05/2009 19:40:30 »
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. 

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #11 on: 26/05/2009 20:46:47 »
Ok; I found it.

Quote from: from the PDF
        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.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #12 on: 26/05/2009 21:06:14 »
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.         
« Last Edit: 26/05/2009 21:22:02 by witsend »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #13 on: 26/05/2009 21:40:55 »
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.


*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #14 on: 27/05/2009 06:07:02 »
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.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #15 on: 27/05/2009 06:13:59 »
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.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #16 on: 27/05/2009 12:51:35 »
Quote from: witsend
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.




*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #17 on: 27/05/2009 13:18:46 »
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.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2009 13:25:46 by witsend »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #18 on: 27/05/2009 13:41:38 »
By the way - it would also be very useful in battery cars, not to power the car but to recharge those batteries. 

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #19 on: 27/05/2009 15:08:43 »
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.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #20 on: 27/05/2009 15:51:21 »
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.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #21 on: 27/05/2009 16:06:19 »
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.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2009 17:04:26 by witsend »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #22 on: 27/05/2009 17:09:29 »
The problem is that anyone capable of doing the experiment already knows that it can't work.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #23 on: 27/05/2009 19:25:13 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #24 on: 27/05/2009 19:54:48 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 17:32:58 by witsend »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #25 on: 27/05/2009 19:58:05 »
Bored Chemist.  Good luck on that experiment.  I'd love to know the results.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 03:36:16 by witsend »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #26 on: 28/05/2009 05:34:11 »
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.

 

« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 06:00:30 by witsend »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #27 on: 28/05/2009 06:36:41 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 06:39:41 by witsend »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #28 on: 28/05/2009 06:57:33 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #29 on: 28/05/2009 07:20:00 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 12:42:09 by witsend »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #30 on: 28/05/2009 12:25:23 »
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?
 

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #31 on: 28/05/2009 13:37:59 »
Quote from: witsend
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.




*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #32 on: 28/05/2009 17:17:34 »
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.   

« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 17:19:06 by witsend »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #33 on: 28/05/2009 17:24:00 »
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.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #34 on: 28/05/2009 18:43:40 »


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?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #35 on: 28/05/2009 19:32:03 »
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.   
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 19:37:15 by witsend »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #36 on: 28/05/2009 19:32:54 »
Quote from: witsend
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. [:)]
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 19:39:32 by Vern »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #37 on: 28/05/2009 20:19:17 »
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?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #38 on: 28/05/2009 20:25:34 »
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. 
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 20:54:33 by witsend »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #39 on: 28/05/2009 20:49:17 »
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.

« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 21:03:02 by witsend »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #40 on: 28/05/2009 21:31:59 »
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.

« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 21:35:38 by Vern »

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #41 on: 28/05/2009 21:49:24 »
'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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2009 22:51:15 by witsend »

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #42 on: 28/05/2009 23:39:36 »
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).

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #43 on: 29/05/2009 06:46:36 »
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.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #44 on: 29/05/2009 19:35:49 »
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. [:)]

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #45 on: 29/05/2009 20:12:33 »
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. 


*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #46 on: 29/05/2009 21:19:29 »
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.

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #47 on: 29/05/2009 21:45:26 »
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.

 

 
« Last Edit: 30/05/2009 07:44:11 by witsend »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #48 on: 30/05/2009 12:46:49 »
Quote from: witsend
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. 

*

witsend

  • Guest
Re: a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #49 on: 30/05/2009 14:14:19 »
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.

 
« Last Edit: 30/05/2009 16:10:11 by witsend »