0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I've just looked. Where? Vern - where do I find the thread on my device? I've just looked. Is it under something specific?
"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
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.
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.Quote from: the linkOne 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!
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.
. . . . . . .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.
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.
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?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.
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,
Either way, I win.
OK, I can't be bothered to look through all that. It's not very clearly writtenHowever 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.