[witsend]

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]

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.

[Vern]

The problem is that anyone capable of doing the experiment already knows that it can't work.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[witsend]

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.

[witsend]

Bored Chemist.  Good luck on that experiment.  I'd love to know the results.

[witsend]

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.

 

[witsend]

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]

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.

[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.

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.

[witsend]

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?
 

[Vern]

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]

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.   

[witsend]

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.

[Bored chemist]

" 

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?

[witsend]

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.   

[Vern]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[witsend]

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. 

[witsend]

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.