[jerrygg38]

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

Just goggle overunity circuits- they have lots of similar circuits such as
http://jnaudin/free.frl/html/overtep.htm

[witsend]

It is a link. Just click it. Click Here Vern

I did that.  I just get the 'front page' so to speak.  Where is my circuit actually part of a thread?

[Vern]

I didn't see your circuit but there were similar ones there.

Tom Bearden has a list of over-unity devices.

"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

[witsend]

I'm actually on a forum - somewhere.  I just cant find it at the moment. If I do I'll get the link to you.  I'm not interested in the circuit.  I'm just interested to see if it's been replicated.

Thanks Vern.  Yet again.

[Vern]

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.

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!

[witsend]

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.

In fact I know something of this movement.  I was contacted by Peter Lindemann.  I believe he's giving me space on his website for my blog.  Somehow?  Whatever that means.  It's so kind of him.  In any event, whatever these guys know about overunity results - it certainly can't be mainstream.  Frankly I prefer mainstream.  It needs a kind of critical overview.  And I've yet to find someone who can discuss the theory to allow overunity.  Are there such?  I get these extraordinary explanations of 'aether' and zero point energy - and goodness knows what.  Nothing to get my teeth into.  Lacks logic and substance.  But I do admire the effort.

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.

[Vern]

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.

The name Tom Bearden is a link in the previous post and I'll edit this later to make this Tom Bearden a link. The link goes to Tom Bearden's web page where there is a list of fifteen or so over unity devices. No, they are not generally accepted. Most of us here can easily see the flaws in each. They are interesting because they highlight our frailties. They show how easily we can be fooled. When we notice the things that tripped up other people it helps us pay attention to things that might trap ourselves.

[jerrygg38]

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.

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!

As I look at some of the inventors and their devices it looks like the ghost seonces (sic). In general they set up a rotating magnetic field outside the motor. You cannot see the field.
  It is the slight of hand, the shell game. It is just a magicians trick. Remember Moses put his stick down and it turned into a cobra in the Ten Commandments. The other magicians did the same thing. The Moses cobra ate the others. Big deal. It was hungry. The others were well fed.
  All jokes. All fun and games.

   It is great that the magicians can fool so many people and have so many talking coconuts. However when I was 17.5 years old I met the original talking coconut guy in Union Square Park.
  The people who argued with him were very smart. many had spend years in the park arguing all sorts of things.
  There were also people with the shell game on the street corners. The world is full of con men. some for fun. Some for money. You could get a stolen ten carrot diamond right for only $50. It only cost the con man around $3. However the minute he said he stole it, he was mobbed by buyers. So many people like that. There was a store nearby which sold all the stolen merchandize. The police could not arrest the store owner because he made the diamonds from glass himself. There is no law against selling fake stolen merchandise. At least years ago. Now it is false advertizing and the people could demand their money back.
  People would be selling fake stolen tv,s. That reminds me of an acquantance of mine. He was a good natured sport.
   Someone was struggling to bring down a 25 inch TV from the uppeer stairs of his apartment house. He helped the man with the set. A good natured slob. When he got to his apartment he found that his door was open and his tv was missing.
   Barum was right. There is a sucker born every minute.

[witsend]

No, they are not generally accepted. Most of us here can easily see the flaws in each. They are interesting because they highlight our frailties. They show how easily we can be fooled. When we notice the things that tripped up other people it helps us pay attention to things that might trap ourselves. Vern

I've finally looked through the threads.  It's fascinating. 

If these guys are openly disclosing their circuits so that they can be replicated - and mainstream will not test this, then it strikes me that mainstream will eventually lose its moral authority.  This is positively a MOVEMENT - akin to a revolution of science by THE PEOPLE and for THE PEOPLE. 

However, by the same token - if they are not disclosing the full components in their apparatus and this entire movement is based on hoaxes and fraudulent misrepresentation - then mainstream really needs to check this out and DISPROVE IT before it gets out of hand.

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.

It is simply not enough to stick one's nose in the air - fingers in the ears, and close the eyes TIGHT.  That does not constitute an argument.

[Vern]

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.

I doubt that any scientist would feel an obligation to disprove claims like this. There are no tests that would convince the advocates that their pet devices do not work.

[witsend]

Hi Vern.  I'm knee deep again.  But am dying to talk to you about this.  I'll catch up later.

[lyner]

. . . . . . .
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.

My ears were burning!
If it's objectivity you want, I can only ask you why this system hasn't been used as a free source of energy. Commercial interests rule and you cannot seriously believe that a CONSPIRACY is at work here, can you?
Just 'possibly' you may consider that what you have measured is, in fact, not an indication of what is really going on in your experiment.  You don't even seem to realise that your system would be a perpetual motion machine.  If it isn't, then it is of no interest to anyone - plenty of devices can produce more volts (or current) than is put in so you have to define what you mean, exactly, by "over unity". When challenged about that you put up a smokescreen of mis-used terminology in which Energy , Fields and other terms are not used in their conventional way. If you don't use a common language then you can't have a dialogue.

It strikes me that what you bugs you is that your ideas are being rejected by a lot of people (they seem to come to this forum, one by one, and leave in disbelief). One or two people have not seen anything wrong with your method, after what could well have been a polite but cursory look at the system.

You are deliberately avoiding facing the possibility of a fundamental error by refusing to get to grips with some real Science. It "doesn't make sense" is no justification because you have no authority to reject it if you don't understand it.

I will, once more, challenge you to show how valid you hypotheses are by successfully using them to predict the frequencies of the Hydrogen lines. If the numbers don't coincide with reality (or can't be produced) then  you haven't got it right. I think a bit more respect for the giants of the past might be in order.

[witsend]

Sophiecentaur - with respect - you really DO NOT GET what it is that I am trying to do.  For some reason you seem to think that only experts can talk to experts.  I have, undeservedly no doubt - a whole range of EXPERTS that I write to and chat to about my physics and physics generally.  Only SOME of those scientist are too self-opinionated not to realise my talents.  Then I or they simply stop the discussion.  But you persistently belittle my contribution because my knowledge of science is NOT PRECISE. 

I am INTUITIVE.  That's all.  I have the ability to conceptualise things that are NOT mainstream.  I cannot wrap my mind around numbers.  But I have a flair for symmetry.  And at the deepest most fundamental level - physics is ALL about symmetry.  So.  I see things in patterns that you guys see with numbers. I'll tell you what I predict.  I predict that the actual description of the atom WILL eventually be described in patterns. It's the only thing that actually matches a full conceptual understanding.

So.  It is like asking a paraplegic to first play tennis before he can comment on the game.  Or it's like saying to an art crtic - how dare you evaluate my work when you can't yourself paint. Or it's like saying to a gardener - how can you garden unless you know all the botanical names of all the plants. Or to an audience at a concert - only those that know how to play an instrument can listen.  The rest of you go home.   And so the analogies can go - on and on and on. 

For some reason a whole bunch of you scientists expressly deny the right of any outsider to comment.  There is the immediate impression that 'you cannot possibly know what you're talking about.'  Very possibly, true.  But why not first find out?  Then comment.  I have read things in this blog by respectable scientists that defy any sensible conventional known classical or even quantum theory.  I see earnest discussion about phenomena that are actually entirely exempt from Vern's required 'final arbiter'.  I don't see anyone pointing out obvious errors.  I see an earnest attempt between two people or more to wrap their minds around each other's concepts.  It's just so charming.  It's sincere and honest and tolerant.  Why can that courtesy not be extended to me.  Because I'm not qualified?

So here's the thing.  I am pointing at a skeleton.  I need someone else to 'flesh it out'.  That's simply a statement of the case.  If you do not like my presentation of the fact - IT IS THE VERY VERY BEST THAT I CAN DO.  It does not deserve a full frontal, explosive parade of intolerant, judgemental, criticisms.  That is what both you and Jerrygg38 subject me to.  It is, at it's least, very uncivilsed and very ungentlemanly.

[witsend]

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.

[rosy]

I think, given sophiecentaur's record on this site to date, that it's pretty unlikely that he particularly wants you of the site.
 
On the other hand if you're going to make assertions about physics which is extremely well explained by current models, and then refuse to engage either with the current theory or with any quantitative details, and moreover expect to be taken seriously, then I'm afraid you're onto a loser.

You may, of course, be right. You may have discovered by.. I don't know.. tuning into the universe by your fabulous intuition, something that modern science has never discovered and is in some way the answer to all our problems. You may have discovered the key to a grand unified theory all by yourself. But if modern science took seriously everyone who thought that, without demanding of them that they explain how their theory fits in with pre-existing experimental results and how their experimental results cannot be explained by the careful application of current theory* then, frankly, no-one would ever get anything done. So it's down to you. Go away, do your homework, forget your new theory for a while, learn about what's already been found out and the conclusions thousands of minds have drawn from that over the years. Then, if you're still not satisfied that your results are explicable in conventional terms (and you haven't found any great holes in your own theory), try again pushing your theory. You might at least by then know what a capacitor is!!

[witsend]

Hi Rosey. Thanks for your advice.

[lyner]

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.

As a matter of fact, witsend, I would rather you were ON this forum and talking some sense! (As Rosy said.)
Is it "spiteful" to ask someone to put their money where their mouth is? Is it "spiteful" to ask someone to get themselves informed about the subject for which the Forum was set up? Science is not just a chit-chat subject, you know. It's a serious business and only advances through a serious attitude.

An emotional response is always easier than one with some 'meat' in it.
I love an informed discussion with people who have done their homework.

btw I am only on this thread again because you used my name in a post. Do the same rules apply to everyone or is it OK to dismiss me  as having a "mindset"?
Unlike you, I have made a point of justifying experimental results throughout my  career in research and backing them up with as much theory as I could get, either from  my knowledge or from others. If I had thrown a wobbler  every time someone told me I was wrong, I wouldn't have made it to first base.

[witsend]

I have a question to ask of anyone who can answer.  When we measure the voltage across the resistor (in my experiment) the voltage is consistent with Ohm's Law.  By this, I meean that if the battery voltage is, say 12 volts, and the resistor is 10 Ohms, then the voltage measured across the resistor, during the On period of the duty cycle is 12/10 x time.  If there is energy stored on the resistor - which I don't doubt, but if this energy somehow 'cost' the battery extra energy, then where do I find this EXTRA energy?

Yet, the amount of energy that is dissipated during the Off period of the duty cycle - absolutely regardless of the length of the applied duty cycle, very nearly equalls the amount of energy that was applied during the On period.  It is, nonetheless some fraction less than the energy dissipated during the On period.

Then it is easily demonstrated that this returning energy actually recharges the battery.  If one connects a second battery to circuit and links this to the test experiment only with a common rail at the negative terminal of both batteries (sorry another edit) - and then puts the diode to the positive terminal of the second battery and then simply gauges the voltage level of the second battery - one will immediately see the voltage rise.

We therefore take the amount of energy delivered by the battery as the difference (sorry this is edited.  I originally said product) of both cycles, as the second Off cycle recharges the battery.  The On cycle does not.

As the second cycle (the Off period) invariably returns less energy to the battery than the amount delivered during the On period, then there will invariably be a loss to the battery.  This also means that it could NEVER be a closed system.

These measurements are repeatedly evident.  

 

[witsend]

btw I am only on this thread again because you used my name in a post. Do the same rules apply to everyone or is it OK to dismiss me  as having a "mindset"?
Unlike you, I have made a point of justifying experimental results throughout my  career in research and backing them up with as much theory as I could get, either from  my knowledge or from others. If I had thrown a wobbler  every time someone told me I was wrong, I wouldn't have made it to first base. Sophiecentaur

I've been trying to think how to answer this.  I think you've hit on the 'difference'.  Physics is your career and you probably think that I'm frivolous in my interest in it?  I'll never be able to understand the math that goes with it.  But I do have a reasonable grasp of its Laws.

When you say that you'd sooner have me on the forum provided I also 'talk sense' - it's as much as saying that - in truth I am always talking nonsense.  That's spiteful.

I've always thought of myself as being reasonable.  And I have a very real interest in the fundamentals of physics.  I sincerely believe that physics has overlooked the importance of the magnetic field.  I believe this could be a primary force and that it could also be the source of dark energy, dark matter, gravity, current flow, and on and on.  I am not qualified to promote this other than to describe my insights.  If it turns out that it's wrong - then it's wrong.  The only proof of concept is in a circuit that I cannot get to the academic forum for analysis. 

I've been reading those overunity forums.  Their contributors are either very young or their language skills aren't that good, or maybe I just don't understand them.  But they do seem to be sincere.  Here and there you get a contributor who is clearly qualified.  Most of them are talking about motors.  I've never studied motors - except as explained by Dyson.  So I can't comment - even on their experiments.  What I do know is that - if indeed they are finding 'over unity' which I believe is the inevitable result of a flyback circuit - then I can fully appreciate their quandary.  How does one get this to the attention of mainstream?

I know Vern has suggested that their findings are wrong - and that THEIR mindset is such that nothing will convince them otherwise.  But I would have thought that replication would disprove this - and very easily.  That's what I mean by a mindset.  If these guys are convinced that there is such a thing as free energy - and you guys are satisfied that there isn't - then of both camps I'd say yours would be the one to win hands down.  You've got the articulation and the ability to analyse the actual experimental data that - quite possibly - they haven't.  And if that exercise could be conducted in a sincere attempt to discover the cause of their confusion - then the exercise would benefit all concerned.

I personally do not believe in free energy.  On the contrary.  I believe that energy always comes at a price.  It's just that electric current flow need not be quite as expensive as classical studies seem to require.

But I also believe in empirical evidence.  As I've said - there may very well be some problem with the circuit analysis.  If there is it is beyond my abilities to find it.  And, it has proven to be difficult for those people mentioned in the paper.  We all want this put to the academics to evaluate.  Unfortunately it's my circuit.  So I have to write that ruddy paper.  But if someone else could check it out and then write that paper it'd be fine by me.  I'm not looking for fame and glory. I just want to know if it's right or wrong. 


Incidentally could you or Vern please answer the question in the previous post.  It's quite important really because it sort of goes to the whole point of this argument.  

[lyner]

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?
The only way to ascertain this would be to look at V and I waveforms, as they very in time, and see how they are related  over the whole cycle of the oscillation. One way to do it would be if the Oscilloscope has an X/Y plotting function (as when  you can display Lissajous figures). Only if the result is a straight, diagonal, line can you say that it "follows Ohm's law".
You have used the term "power factor" and, although it is not appropriate for a non-sinusoidal waveform, it can be used to explain why your battery would be expected to waste power because, at times, there will have been more current flowing than if the load were purely resistive - this current, flowing through the internal resistance of the battery, will dissipate (waste) more power in the battery.

Your statements on this topic only cover part of the story. The details of what the terms mean are crucial. Your experiment is based upon putting pulses of current through a resistor. There is no way you can get back any of the energy which has been dissipated resistively - except as heat. The impedance of the circuit is dominated by the resistive components and any reactive power involved is tiny. The reactance can, however, produce distortion of the boxcar pulses which can easily mess up measurements of voltage and current unless you can measure them continuously and at a rate which is much higher than any impulse response of your circuit.  The whole thing can be analysed  accurately and repeatably. If you included the particular measurement you used - in detail - the predicted measurements from the analysis would be the same as you got. But your measurements don't tell the whole story (as jg38 told you). If you cannot accept that and rely on your very limited experience of electronics then you will never get to the bottom of this.
I am not in a position to discuss this with the people who you think have given your experiment credibility - an I don't think they would be bothered to talk to me either. BUT you have to accept that, unless this 'anomaly' has been observed happening all over the place and in circuits of  all layouts by legions of professional electronics engineers then the overwhelming probability is that your  limited measurements of a limited set of configurations are most likely at fault.


Is there a more 'caring' way of telling someone what they have said is nonsense? The word "nonsense" need not be taken personally. If what you say doesn't make sense, how else can I point it out?

I read the words you use about not knowing a lot about Physics and they read like an honest statement but you then declare that you have a theory which explains everything and that mainstream Science has got it all wrong. How can all that make sense? Where do you think the tried and tested mainstream ideas came from? Do you think they came from some inspired amateur? It's like most things- 1% inspiration and  99% perspiration. You need a bit more perspiration before you can start to move Science forwards.

The existence of two opinions about a subject doesn't imply that both opinions are equally valid. There are websites devoted to all  manner of stuff which you, too, would regard as nonsense. The young and inarticulate are hardly the best people to use a sources on which to base an opinion of how the Universe works - sincerity counts for nothing if you happen to believe something which is demonstrably false.