[lyner]

witsend: From way back in this thread:

It is an entire misconception to assume that science is determined by anything other than sound experimental evidence.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Science attempts to arrive at a set of rules which will successfully predict what will happen under circumstances which have not been 'tested' yet. That's the whole point of having Science at all.
There is a very sound basic principle involving Energy considerations which says that you can't 'get more energy out' of a system than you put into it. There are Thermodynamic reasons for believing this and for expecting it to apply everywhere.
Your system seems to run counter to this very basic idea. To say that your machine can work, you are implying that Energy is not relevant to your machine. Experience tells us that everything involves Energy. Can you suggest a repeatable experiment which tells us otherwise?  You are misunderstanding what Science is all about if you say it is unscientific to dismiss an idea because it runs counter to past experience. If we followed every line of enquiry just because it takes someone's fancy then we would not have progressed at all. We wouldn't be allowed to use a single 'formula' because that would imply that we could predict and outcome.
You carefully avoid using the quantity 'Energy' in your arguments and stick to Current / Charge and Emf which are both vector quantities and can be transformed (independently) any way you want. It is only when you start to calculate / measure the 'dot' product of  two quantities that you can assess what is happening to the Energy / Power.

Why should Science be determined by "popular vote"? If everyone in the world voted that this lump of lead should travel upwards, not downwards, when I let it go, it would still fall to the ground. The whole point of Science is that it tries to get closer to 'reality' than people's votes and beliefs. The only 'beliefs' in true Science are based on experience. That last para of yours reads as little more than pique, to be honest.
But all you have to do is to show us all a working model and we WILL believe you.

[witsend]

'Why should Science be determined by "popular vote"?'
Sophicentuar

Indeed why should it?  I tend to agree with you.

'But all you have to do is to show us all a working model and we WILL believe you.'

Thanks for that. 

[witsend]

sophicentuar, I didn't really answer your post.  I'm not sure if we're on the same page.  I realise that the claim is not only confrontational but that it offends all kinds of laws.  This I know.  The point is that it's not a trivial claim.  As I've written - it sort of goes to the gullet of all know scientific paradigms, especially as this relates to the second law of thermodynamics.

I'm really just a layman with a really sketchy knowledge of anything at all - let alone physics. But I sort of stumbled on a few things in science that I tried to answer - in my own, may I repeat this, amateurish way.  I've been airing those views, rather liberally and although braced for it, have not, thus far, been 'attacked' except in so far as the over unity claim seems to also have a presumptive claim to perpetual motion. I have no idea if this has been answered or, if 'pro tem' it is just put on hold.   

I read your profile and see that you are, yourself, a physicist.  I have claimed in my post that Nuclear energy exceeds unity.  I've only referenced this from the rather restricted reading material that I can get that speaks to laymen.  Can you please tell me if this is correct or not.  I've looked up Wiki and although there's intimations of this - it is never expressly referenced.

I'd be very grateful for your help in clarifying this - if you've got the time.  Or is there anyone, Vern - someone?  who can explain this?

[lyner]

It strikes me that, if you appear to have extracted some energy out of your battery 'for free' then, as you have a record of the amount of energy 'put into' and 'taken out of' the battery, there must be some other change within the resistor or elsewhere which has yielded some.
Does this effect occur for different types of resistor (I mean carbon, wire, metal film etc.) and is the the same amount? I would be much more prepared to look at your results in terms of some other changes within the load which might produce some energy than looking for this brand new mechanism. You see, this mechanism would surely be showing itself in all sorts of other places - not just in your experiment. Its effect would have to be zero in all other situations where there have been extensive and accurate measurements of  energy in / energy out, else why hasn't it been discovered? After all, the circuit you use is very much like parts of many switching circuits. I'm sure that someone who found their battery didn't run down would pick up on it pretty quickly! Did you, for instance, ever discharge your battery into a normal load and establish exactly how much energy was left in it after your experiment? Finding its capacity, in this way, before and after your experiment, might reveal a difference.
You would also have to examine the resistor before and after the experiment and also look at the long term effects on the battery. How many times have you gone through the cycle? What proportion of the battery capacity have you apparently got out by this means?

There seems to have been some confusion about the implications of traveling at 2c. At 2c the energy is not infinite - from the Lorentz equation. It is only at exactly c that the energy is infinite. Actually 'getting past' c is the only problem. Tachyons could find it just as difficult to slow down as we could to speed up.
The Cherenkov radiation thing is a complete red herring as it only involves particles whose speed is greater than the wave velocity of light in the substance they hit - which is less than c.

Why does Nuclear Energy 'exceed unity' any more than Chemical energy? The energy you get out is consistent with the Mass Defect - but I assume you take E = mcsquared into account. What exactly were you getting at?

You must not be offended by skepticism, nor must you attribute it just to "not invented here". You have to apply Occam's Razor to any ideas and chop out what isn't necessary for the explanation. So far, you haven't necessarily eliminated 'known' mechanisms. Dark Matter has only  been proposed after years and years of striving to explain the situation without it!

[witsend]

sophiecentaur - I had no idea that 2c could represent infinite energy.  Am not sure what this means. Can't quite get my head around it.

The energy was calculated as per the test.  Not an idle claim.  Many accreditors.  And many circuit variations but all, admitedly testing temperature rise dissipated.  We haven't measured any other type of dissipated energy - motion, signals, whatever.  If you consider it - this type of switching circuit is not usually designed for generating heat.  As a rule, applications are hand operated drills, whatever.  The 'heat' is a nuisance and dissipated over heat sinks.

Does this effect occur for different types  of resistor (I mean carbon, wire, metal film etc.) and is the the same amount?

This I don't know.  We used resisters to maximise inductance.  The only carbon resistors used were to measure current flow.  Not sure what a metal film resistor is.  But take it that the answer is no.  The object was always to throw as much inductance at the circuit as possible.  We also wound our own resistors when testing ac supply sources. 

'Did you, for instance, ever discharge your battery into a normal load and establish exactly how much energy was left in it after your experiment?'

Yes.  This was done extensively.  BP called for that test.  Vagaries excepted, battery draw down rate is consistent with measurements across the shunt.

'You would also have to examine the resistor before and after the experiment and also look at the long term effects on the battery. How many times have you gone through the cycle? What proportion of the battery capacity have you apparently got out by this means?'

These tests and variations were done over a period of 4 years - always repeated.  I eventually published the test in a technical journal.  If you look under my name on the web you'll find an article on it.  I cannot stress enough how exhaustively this was managed.  Nor do I want to elaborate on the difficulties in getting academic evaluation.  Two have been involved but are anxious to keep their names disassociated.

'The Cherenkov radiation thing is a complete red herring as it only involves particles whose speed is greater than the wave velocity of light in the substance they hit - which is less than c.'

Vern and I both realise this.

'Why does Nuclear Energy 'exceed unity' any more than Chemical energy? The energy you get out is consistent with the Mass Defect - but I assume you take E = mcsquared into account. What exactly were you getting at?'

I understood, probably erroneously, that nuclear energy in fact defeated the second law and only conserved charge.  Is this emphatically wrong?

You must not be offended by skepticism, nor must you attribute it just to "not invented here". You have to apply Occam's Razor to any ideas and chop out what isn't necessary for the explanation. So far, you haven't necessarily eliminated 'known' mechanisms. Dark Matter has only  been proposed after years and years of striving to explain the situation without it!

I only learned of dark energy about 3 years ago.  My model was proposed approximately 10 years ago.  I was delighted to hear about this need because it seemed to fit the model.

I am only offended at skepticism when the merits of the test are ignored.  But I'm awfully grateful for this.  I'd love it if you could, perhaps work out where the error is, if possible and, obviously, time permitting.

Many thanks for this considered reply.  it all takes so much time and I know that this is something we none of us have in abundance.

[witsend]

By the way, battery draw down rates were done with simultaneous controls, batteries recharged and swapped so that the control battery put to the experiment and so on.  When I say it was exhaustive it really was exhaustive.  Not only on two batteries but were then required to test other types.

[lyner]

Responses in no particular order.

Most resistors you can buy are metal film, these days - a resistive film on a ceramic cylinder. Different thicknesses and spiral grooves cut to get the resistance they want. (N.B. they are inductive unless you pay extra for critical RF use.) Metal film is more stable in value and doesn't degrade.

There was a mention earlier that traveling at 2c represented infinite energy but the
1/(1-v²/c²) factor in the Lorenz formula has a singularity only at v=c.

Why wouldn't charge, momentum and mass(=energy) be conserved in any change - Nuclear, included-?

When you say "draw down rates" do you mean metered values of V and I? I was suggesting that the more reliable measure would be to measure  time to total discharge under all conditions. Also, a range of battery technologies (at least more than one?) would be good. How many mAh were needed to recharge the battery after your exercise? Batteries are weird things with odd chemistry and odd charge / PD characteristics

I can't see why one would expect any different results between one non-reactive load and another (heaters, motors, lamps). Electricity is fairly omnivorous stuff and is normally thought of as being unable to distinguish one load from another as long as the impedances are the same. The electrons on the battery plates will only know about the local potential, for instance. If, as you say, the load inductance is the factor, then you could put any inductance you like in series (or parallel) - there's always some combination to give the same result. I must say, the value of inductance of a wound resistor is in the region of nH, which is an extremely low reactance at the low frequency you were using. I refer to the switching times of the MOSfet.

I am having a problem with some of what you write in your paper- interchanging the words Energy and Field. They are not the same beast, are they? The Energy relates to the Integral (work done) as you take a Unit (charge, mass ,current) through a Field change. The existence of a field (like the Earth's gravitational field) says nothing of the energy involved unless you make a change (like changing the height of an object above ground or changing the field of an electromagnet by changing the current).

I still don't see how this effect, if it is as startling (17 times!!) as the Pretoria Newspaper article claims, cannot have shown up on almost every lab bench and in every switch mode power supply and inverter that's ever been built. For the PSUs in Space vehicles, for instance, the designers have been trying to maximise  conversion efficiency. How can they not have stumbled on the effect of small bit of inductance in the load?
The effect of back emf when switching a current fast as been used for years in TV CRT drivers which use the fast flyback waveform from the line scan circuit to produce a high voltage for the EHT  - but this doesn't involve any gain in energy - it's just a convenient way to get a high potential.

Indeed, how did YOU come across it? Did you predict it and then find those results or was it a chance result that caught your attention? How did a (you must admit) whacky sounding theory take you down the avenue of MOSfets and curly resistors?
 

[witsend]

Hi sophiecentaur,  You ask so many questions - I can't keep them all in my head.  I'll start with your last first. 

Indeed, how did YOU come across it? Did you predict it and then find those results or was it a chance result that caught your attention? How did a (you must admit) whacky sounding theory take you down the avenue of MOSfets and curly resistors?I'm

I'm intrigued with your emphasis 'YOU'.  Certainly NOT a chance result.  I'd never in my life dealt with ciruits.  All I knew of electricity was from Dyson's book on conceptual physics.  I had to go on an extensive learning curve, ably assisted by Brian Buckley and the late Bernard Bulak (friends, both electrical technicians).  I had shown my model to a couple of academic physicists who - like you, were largely amused.  I'm looking back a decade now.  It was put to me that if I had a model, then I should be able to make a prediction.  Well.  I'd never been able to get my mind around the thought that electricity comprised a 'flow of electrons' for reasons which I'll gladly explain but will simply copy a previous post, if that's allowed. 

My own take was that current flow comprised the flow of magnetic fields, as indicated in that paper.  Since my fields had to return to the source 'in tact' I had a shrewed idea that I could exceed those energy constraints.  I also assumed that this would be proof enough.  I was advised, by them, that if I indeed exceeded unity then I could claim anything I liked.  I took them at their word.  The down side was that when the test was up and ready for demonstration, both of these gentlemen advised me that the would not evaluate the performance of 'a machine'.  I think I'm quoting this correctly. Their names, for what it's worth are Professor Violie and a Professor Claymans (not sure that I've spelled this correctly).  I think Claymans has now retired. I think they're both theoretical physicists but I'm open to correction.

So, since then, I've been 'all dressed up but nowhere to go' so to speak.  Their reaction and varying forms of this was all that I could solicit from academics.  Industry is different.  They looked more closedly.  But nobody can progress this until the paper has been properly reviewed and the IET wont forward the paper for review.  Which I find extraordinary.  The more so as I have spoken to many academic electrical engineers who know that paper and the vast majority have advised me to try and get this to a reviewed journal. 

[witsend]

Regarding your comments on batteries.  The standard test was to run the experiment and a control simultaneously - the control comprising a resistor in series with the battery supply source.  The Ohms value of the control resistor was varied either to match the measured current flow from the test or to match the temperature rise of the test (this latter detailed in the paper).  Either way - there is clear evidence of gain.  When the battery on the control was depleted then both batteries disconnected, recharged and swapped to repeat the test, but with the control battery to the experiment and vice versa.  All resistors with equivalent mass in the control and the experiment.

Then we progressed to different types of batteries, different ampere hours, but essentially confined to lead acid batteries.  That was the test required by BP. 

I have never even thought about infinite energy.  I wouldn't understand it any any context at all.

Draw down rates - I do mean to describe the rate that current flows from the supply source.  VI

I only mean to explain that the tests have been confined to generating heat.  I have never worked with motors.  It may very well give the same benefit.  I just don't know.

I can't explain why this isn't believed.  I knew it would be contentious.  But ten years after the event I am still trying to persuade people to test it for themselves.  Clearly you scientists are not that happy about challenging thermodynamic laws.  And add to that a total retake on current flow.  I think it's probably understandable that you're all a little sceptical.  But add all that to a mere layman coming forward with such extraordinary nonsense - and the justification for ignoring the test could be argued. 

My own take is that science is only determined by experimental evidence and theory must, therefore, give way to fact.

[lyner]

My only response to your last statement is that I can't be sure what the actual 'fact' is. That is always the problem with   phenomena which are thought to be  new.
What have you actually observed and what was special about your setup that made it behave so differently from a million other such circuits?
There are so many circuits that involve switches, inductors and diodes. I think you could look at the conventional behaviour of the circuit and see where you part company.
I don't think you can dismiss the electron flow theory easily. Electrons can be detected streaming off a cathode and demonstrate mass and charge. Your magnetic fields would surely exhibit a wave nature (very long wavelengths?)
I will watch this space with interest!

[witsend]

Sophicentaur, This was posted under 'new theories' thread and may explain my problems with conventional explanation of current flow.  I've edited it marginally.

'Wiki definition of current flow requires 'free floating electrons'.  Given that these electrons that come from - somewhere? - also somehow 'attach' to a wire or any such conductive circuit components then can someone please explain this scenario.  Take your average lead acid battery as a DC power supply.  If these electrons 'travel' where do they go once they've reached the opposite terminal?  Through the battery courtesy the 'pump action' provided by the battery?

Now Wiki explains that batteries, fortunately, have 'free floating protons'.  This gets ever more interesting.  Where do these 'free floating protons come from?  Then.  The electrons presumably need to travel through the battery.  Presumably also they do this by attaching to the protons, somehow?  But, if the electrons attach to the protons during their journey through the battery - then we get simple hydrogen atoms.  The battery would then, theoretically, become a repository of pure hydrogen or subtle variations of this, each state - deuterium - tritium - becoming progressively more explosive than the last.

If the quantum of electrons on the wire or in the circuitry, exceeds the number of free floating protons - then we have a problem with that 'cluster' of electrons that cannot get past the terminal.

If by some happy accident the number of 'free floating' electrons precisely equals the number of 'free floating' protons then 'attachment' would result not in a reduction in potential difference but in an increase.  This is because hydrogen - apart from being highly combustible in any condition - is also a negatively ionised atom.  Therefore one would think that the increased ionisation would also result in an increase in the potential difference measured across the battery.  It would not result in a decrease.  What then accounts for the decrease is the actual measured result of current flow?

If, on the other hand - given that these innate logical contradictions were somehow answered by some force not yet incorporated in conventional explanations of current flow - but yet requires the flow of electrons - then the speed at which the electrons again 'detach' from the structure of those protons - would in no way equal the rate at which current is measured to flow through circuitry.

Then, assuming that the potential difference is reduced, notwithstanding the increase to potential difference courtesy the ionised state of these hydrogen atoms, and over time the battery indeed becomes flat - we recharge it - how?  By adding more 'free floating electrons' or 'free floating protons / or possibly both?

So I put it to you that the 'flow of electrons' is logically inconsistent with the known properties of current flow. Here's the thing.  The 'flow of electrons' was proposed as an enabling image - never a fact.  That it then became incorporated into classical definition as 'a fact' is a sad reflection on the reluctance of scientists to grapple with contradictory evidence.  Rather do they just accept all such explanations, the more obtuse the explanation, the more likely it is to be accepted.  It hearkens to the story of the king's invisible cloak. At some point someone must point out the obvious.'

[witsend]

'What have you actually observed and what was special about your setup that made it behave so differently from a million other such circuits?'
From sophiecentaur

Nothing.  Other than the result was both anticipated and measured.  I have spoken to so many engineers. There are those who flatly dismiss the evidence, provided always that they do not see the demonstration.  Among those that have witnessed or replicated I've had acknowledgement, admittedly rare, that they had seen such results in their past on various circuits, but dismissed them as anomalies.

I'm reasonably certain that shunt circuits do enable overunity results.  But their applications are not intended as energy savers so no-one looks for a gain.  By the way, gains are not invariably evident.  It depends on optimising the frequency - usually, as mentioned, when the waveform first goes into oscillation.  But, just as it can result in a gain, there are frequencies that result in a loss.  One needs that switch to find the optimum frequency.

I also know that there's a fringe group of scientists, increasing in number, who claim over unity.  I believe they base their observations on experimental evidence but am not sure that any of them actually predicted or anticipated this.  But I do know that they're caught on the 'horns of a dillemma' to patent? - disclose? - explain?.  Each phase of this problem sharpens those horns. 

Fortunately I'm only really interested in the model and my knowledge of circuitry and electrical applications is way too sketchy to try and capitalise on it.  But it's a field waiting to be exploited.  Hopefully the electric applications will eventually be more widely used.



 

[Madidus_Scientia]

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.

Unfortunately his prediction was wrong, but as he says, why are you using a battery at all? Why not a capacitor?

Maybe because it won't work.

[witsend]

Why must I use a capacitor?  It works with a battery.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Because it would remove doubt that the energy actually just comes from the battery.

[witsend]

I really don't understand this. 

'Because it would remove doubt that the energy actually just comes from the battery.'
From Madidus_Scientia

I have always assumed that the energy was coming from the battery.  Where else?  Except that we've also done experiments on ac utility supply sources with the same benefits.

[lyner]

Why must I use a capacitor?  It works with a battery.

I agree with MS. If all you need is a source of emf 'to get the process going' then a charged capacitor would provide it. And it would remove any unease about the true Energy contribution from the battery source.

btw, when trying to get down to fundamental understanding of any topic, I would not recommend Wikki. The theory of current conduction through a metal involves the  idea that, in metals, the loosely bound ('outer') electrons of each metal atom are shared by the attraction of many nearby atoms. They move, as a cloud, with the application of a very small electric field. The 'solid' bit of the metal consists of an array of 'positive ion cores' which are immobile. The electrons behave like a gas, drifting through the solid. Don't forget that the average drift speed of the electrons is only a matter of mm per second - it's just that there are something like 10^23 electrons involved in each mole of the metal.

 
In a battery, the electrons which arrive from the circuit at the positive terminal will combine with protons (or ionised Hydrogen atoms). As far as I can see, the H ions are produced by action between the plate and the electrolyte. Ions move through the electrolyte because of the PD produced by the action at the plate and, at the other plate, free electrons are released by another reaction and they flow out of the negative terminal.
Your idea of forming deuterium and tritium cannot be right - you need Mev's of energy to cause that to happen.

Also, how would you define, in general terms, your "shunt circuit"? You, presumably, mean more than just two parallel components. . . ?

[witsend]

Hi sophiecentaur - so glad you're still awake.  Still reeling at Madidus_Scientia's dismay that the thread survived longer than anticipated.  What a cheek.  So glad you answered my current problem.  I'm going to have to study it though.  I can't quite get my head around it.

Regarding the capacitor - I actually don't know what this is.  I only know its used in the switching circuitry - why I don't know.  But would the use of the capacitor satisfy the need for a flow of magnetic fields as detailed?  I'm entirely out of my depth.  Is the idea to use this device instead of the battery?  If so - yet again you guys are asking for a perpetual motion machine.  Then I really do not see the point.  I do NOT have a perpetual motion machine.  But I'll look at your comments again.  Just remember.  I've got a standard circuit and measurement of energy delivered is also measured using classical analysis.  Why must I do more than this?

I've been trying to work out the difference between the mass required by nuclear energy compared to the mass required for a battery to see if I can answer that earlier question as to whether or not nuclear energy conforms to second law of thermodynamics.  But I'm struggling here. 

Thanks for answering this.  By the way - regarding infinite energy - I think I see the relevance.  It's probably to do with that post regarding zipons in the toroid - influencing particles at faster than light speed.  I only wanted to point out that - given that velocity - it's reasonable to assume the 'effect' would appear to be simultaneous.  I don't believe in infinity.  Only because I can't get my head around it.  I need boundaries - all over the place.

[lyner]

Needless to say, I am looking at this from a conventional viewpoint so I have no idea of the relevance of your magnetic fields. But, unless you think that the current flowing in the load "knows" about where the driving Potential came from, I don't see how the circuit should behave any differently.

Regarding the capacitor - I actually don't know what this is.

Do you really mean you don't know what a capacitor is? You need to look at a basic circuit theory book if you don't.

[witsend]

No, I really do not know what a capacitor is.  You can safely assume that there is no limit to my lack of knowledge especially as it relates to electric circuitry.  I find all electric circuits quintessentially boring.  It was just a means to an end.  My only interest is in physics.