[witsend]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[witsend]

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

[Vern]

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.

[witsend]

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]

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.

[Vern]

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]

'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?

[Vern]

I did not find anything in the paper about the experiment.

[witsend]

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]

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. 

[Vern]

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.

[witsend]

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.         

[Vern]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[witsend]

By the way - it would also be very useful in battery cars, not to power the car but to recharge those batteries. 

[Vern]

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.