[jerrygg38]

I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Sophiecentaur

The whole point was to use the counter electromotive force from an inductive resistor.  I really did not think that anyone needed to be persuaded about the properties of counter electromotive force.  That has never been an issue until Jerry discounted its contribution to the experiment.

 Yes because I believe you will get the same data with or without any inductance.

[witsend]

JerryGG38 I'm also tired of this.  And I'd love to start a new thread.  But I know now that people use this forum to get ideas.  I'd love someone - need never know who - to duplicate the experiment.  So.  In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, please replicate the experiment detailed in this attached blog. There are no patents, the device may very well be useable, and, in the outside chance that academics read this - please let your students test it.  It has some interesting effects that appear to fly in the face of classical prediction.

That the contributors to this forum assume errors is entirely understandable.  And that there are errors in the experiemnt is more than likely probable.  But the fact is that the experiment itself will reveal the errors - if they are there.  And thus far, read the paper, some really well qualified electrical engineers have not been able to find the fault on the circuit.    

http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

And please, please, jerryGG38 and Sophiecentaur, please let this be the last post so that any trawlers may still learn the object of the original post.  That you disagree is your right - and I've stressed this.  You are in good company.  But indulge me.  Let others also have a chance to argue this, hopefully from the experimental evidence rather than from assumed results.

EDIT - Sophiecentaur I've answered your question in this thread.  I said that the energy levels comprise zipons. 

[lyner]

EDIT - what I'm actually asking is this.  Do you know of any lead acid battery that is able to deliver a negative current flow?

Yes
ANY lead-acid cell that is being CHARGED!

I am still waiting for some help with these Hydrogen Lines. Do you know what I am referring to? I am sure that you must know as your hypothesis claims to be so all-embracing.

It may help to convince all these new readers you are hoping for.

[lyner]

I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Sophiecentaur

The whole point was to use the counter electromotive force from an inductive resistor.  I really did not think that anyone needed to be persuaded about the properties of counter electromotive force.  That has never been an issue until Jerry discounted its contribution to the experiment.

 Yes because I believe you will get the same data with or without any inductance.

I think you are right. The offset depends entirely on the duty cycle, in the end. It's a matter of peak to mean ratio, I think.
Amongst other things, it isn't clear what the duty cycle is for the waveform when it settles down to its free running condition (at the higher frequency). The spikes would be very narrow, compared with the 5μs which I understand was the period of oscillation. The time constant associated with the 10μH inductor and the 100pF of the Mosfet is 10^-13s but the speed of operation is, I think 1V/ns  - which implies pulses in the order of 20ns width. That could imply a duty cycle in the region of 20ns/5μs or  less than  1/100. Plenty of opportunity for a huge peak to mean ratio or "over unity".

[jerrygg38]

I see where you are coming from but wasn't the whole point to show that an inductance has the magical property of regenerating energy? Sophiecentaur

The whole point was to use the counter electromotive force from an inductive resistor.  I really did not think that anyone needed to be persuaded about the properties of counter electromotive force.  That has never been an issue until Jerry discounted its contribution to the experiment.

 Yes because I believe you will get the same data with or without any inductance.

I think you are right. The offset depends entirely on the duty cycle, in the end. It's a matter of peak to mean ratio, I think.
Amongst other things, it isn't clear what the duty cycle is for the waveform when it settles down to its free running condition (at the higher frequency). The spikes would be very narrow, compared with the 5μs which I understand was the period of oscillation. The time constant associated with the 10μH inductor and the 100pF of the Mosfet is 10^-13s but the speed of operation is, I think 1V/ns  - which implies pulses in the order of 20ns width. That could imply a duty cycle in the region of 20ns/5μs or  less than  1/100. Plenty of opportunity for a huge peak to mean ratio or "over unity".

I am glad Witsend has a new post. Some of her ideas are very good and interesting to discuss.
 the big problem with the circuit is that I have been a design engineer from 17.5 years to 55 years. Now I am a handyman. The circuit she used has been used over the ages in many forms. In the defense business similar circuits have been used where extreme accuracy was required. Near perfect capacitors, inductors, resistors, high speed diodes etc. Any strange over energy result would have been picked up immediately. An error of one part in 10,000 for any reason would have had the best engineers and some physicists studying why that occurred.
   There is nothing strange occurring in that circuit. I just work with a calculator but the circuit analysis guys model everything. If they have problems then they ask me to find a strange solution. I always find something out of the ordinary. These circuits never gave us trouble.
   Anyway I like some of Witsends ideas. The circuit is a meaningless exercise and she wants to call it quits so hopefully we will all forget it.
  Yes you came up with many good points. However the poor horse has been beaten to death. I know she still believe in it but perhaps her friends will see the error of their ways. Perhaps they are just too embarashed to say so.

[lyner]

I agree.
See you on another thread.

[witsend]

JerryGG38 I'm also tired of this.  And I'd love to start a new thread.  But I know now that people use this forum to get ideas.  I'd love someone - need never know who - to duplicate the experiment.  So.  In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, please replicate the experiment detailed in this attached blog. There are no patents, the device may very well be useable, and, in the outside chance that academics read this - please let your students test it.  It has some interesting effects that appear to fly in the face of classical prediction.

That the contributors to this forum assume errors is entirely understandable.  And that there are errors in the experiemnt is more than likely probable.  But the fact is that the experiment itself will reveal the errors - if they are there.  And thus far, read the paper, some really well qualified electrical engineers have not been able to find the fault on the circuit.   

http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

And please, please, jerryGG38 and Sophiecentaur, please let this be the last post so that any trawlers may still learn the object of the original post.  That you disagree is your right - and I've stressed this.  You are in good company.  But indulge me.  Let others also have a chance to argue this, hopefully from the experimental evidence rather than from assumed results.

Ive posted this again.

[witsend]

I've copied this from another thread.  Hope it's allowed.

You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?Jerrygg38

I can.  And I don't have brains.  I just have an edge.  So does everyone who tries to work out problems for themselves.  If you only hear one side of an argument there's no discussion.  The trained scientist has only heard one side of an argument supported, he believes by empirical proof. Well.  I of all people know how anxious the scientific community are to test their hypotheses Laws, and general paradigms.  I have seen how happy they are to look at empirical proof in experimental data.   I have a really, really simple electric circuit that repeatedly delivers energy efficiencies that boggle the mind and blow the unity barrier into the dark ages.  If empirical proof is everything - then go and test it.

Read through the thread again on that circuit.  Where did all that critical arrogance come from?  I only asked people to check some numbers out.  And the sad part is - THAT reaction is typical.  Par for the course.  It seems that one can question anything in this world today.  We've finally enjoyed a sort of inalienable, international, constitutional right to speak our minds.  We can question the existence of God.  We can question the wisdom of our leaders.  And we can even question justice.  These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications.  And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much.  So it also tests ones tolerance.  But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST.  Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season.

Fortunately there are also those out there who still like to look at alternative ideas.  I just wish they'd also look at alternative experiments.

[jerrygg38]

I've copied this from another thread.  Hope it's allowed.

You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?Jerrygg38

I can.  And I don't have brains.  I just have an edge.  So does everyone who tries to work out problems for themselves.  If you only hear one side of an argument there's no discussion.  The trained scientist has only heard one side of an argument supported, he believes by empirical proof. Well.  I of all people know how anxious the scientific community are to test their hypotheses Laws, and general paradigms.  I have seen how happy they are to look at empirical proof in experimental data.   I have a really, really simple electric circuit that repeatedly delivers energy efficiencies that boggle the mind and blow the unity barrier into the dark ages.  If empirical proof is everything - then go and test it.

Read through the thread again on that circuit.  Where did all that critical arrogance come from?  I only asked people to check some numbers out.  And the sad part is - THAT reaction is typical.  Par for the course.  It seems that one can question anything in this world today.  We've finally enjoyed a sort of inalienable, international, constitutional right to speak our minds.  We can question the existence of God.  We can question the wisdom of our leaders.  And we can even question justice.  These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications.  And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much.  So it also tests ones tolerance.  But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST.  Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season.

Fortunately there are also those out there who still like to look at alternative ideas.  I just wish they'd also look at alternative experiments.

  You are not questioning scientists with this circuit. Since it is a standard circuit which has been used and produced millions of times before, the results are quite well known. Thousands of engineers and technicians have built this circuit. It is not a new circuit. It is a standard circuit.
   Standard circuits are subject to circuit analysis. They are studied in great detail. In all the millions of times the circuit has been measured and studied, no one except yourself has come to these strange conclusions.

  I have studied the circuit. In general circuit analysis is sufficient to understand the circuit in question. Things deviate very little from circuit analysis. There are computer programs in which you can put the circuit parameters in and get the answers out.

   When you discuss your theory of the universe, that is a different issue because non of us have all the answers. We are all struggling to find answers.

  When you discuss standard circuits, you are discussing nuts and bolts engineering, not science theories. You said you were finished with this topic but you seem to want to continue discussing a non-scientifc engineering issue. It is just a garden variety simple electrical problem which can be answered on some groups which specialize in electrical problems. This forum is for the discussion of complex theories. It is not for the discussion of technical high school such as Brooklyn Tech HS or Community college level circuit discussions. At most college electrical course EE 101. The people who worked on this for you must have gotten a D grade in the course. They are totally wacked out. Or they are just having fun with you!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BenV]

This forum is for the discussion of complex theories. It is not for the discussion of technical high school such as Brooklyn Tech HS or Community college level circuit discussions.

I disagree - this forum is for discussion of science, scientists, technology and engineering at whatever level people require.  You may not wish to discuss such things, but please don't speak for the forum as a whole...

[jerrygg38]

This forum is for the discussion of complex theories. It is not for the discussion of technical high school such as Brooklyn Tech HS or Community college level circuit discussions.

I disagree - this forum is for discussion of science, scientists, technology and engineering at whatever level people require.  You may not wish to discuss such things, but please don't speak for the forum as a whole...

Ok. You have been here much longer than me. I guess I just got tired when W said she was finished discussing the circuit and then started it up again.

[Vern]

We can question the wisdom of our leaders.  And we can even question justice.  These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications.  And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much.  So it also tests ones tolerance.  But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST.  Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season.

I understand how you would feel this way, but it is not really so. We question scientists all the time. That is what scientists do best. We question everything; then when we are certain we have found reality, we question it again. Einstein questioned QM theorists and thought their notion of superposition was absurd, for example.

[jerrygg38]

I just checked the internet again. It seems that there are a lot of demonstrations proving over unity results. In one the instructor keeps moving the magnet with his hand. Without a closer study it appears that his hand energy is doing the job.
   They all look funny. It is just a shell game using phony science. I guess it is a modern form of the medicine man. The perpetrators of the frauds like the attention. Perhaps some sucker others into putting up money. However I suspect that there are a lot of people who enjoy their talking coconuts.

[jerrygg38]

PS> They even have a talk group
  OverUnity.com

 Evidently there are thousands of circuits and millions of ideas. I guess it has a pop-culture following. Is it an outgrowth of star-treck? What does Shatner have to say about it?

[Vern]

Interesting; I just checked it out; maybe witsend is a member.

[jerrygg38]

Interesting; I just checked it out; maybe witsend is a member.

I imagine Witsend got these ideas somewhere. She has a lot of company. Maybe they even have a magazine.

  In any event, Witsend keeps wanting people to try her ideas. It looks like there are millions of people who have tried her ideas and similar ideas. She should discuss her ideas with all these millions of over unity cult followers. Perhaps it is the new religion of the future.

[witsend]

No.  I'm not a member - but I know there's a forum - somewhere - that's got threads on my circuit.  It's great. Really entertaining reading.  But I can't for the life of me find it again.  If I do I'll let you know.

[Vern]

No.  I'm not a member - but I know there's a forum - somewhere - that's got threads on my circuit.  It's great. Really entertaining reading.  But I can't for the life of me find it again.  If I do I'll let you know.

It is OverUnity.com

[witsend]

I've just looked.  Where?
Vern  - where do I find the thread on my device?  I've just looked.  Is it under something specific?

[Vern]

It is a link. Just click it. Click Here