[witsend (OP)]

If there is anything in the book you need to know, do not hesitate to ask. I will not make a fool of true questions.

Thanks Mr. Scientist.

[Mr. Scientist]

You're welcome. Physics is not easy - not even for the most intellectual!

[Mr. Scientist]

Even I still need to understand the very basics

[witsend (OP)]

Mr. Scientist - just for the record - I have my own strange model that predicted this effect on the circuit that I referred to.  But, unlike yours, my model remains entirely incomprehensible to all. My son points out that the number of people who understand it increases in inverse proportion to the number of people who read it.  Rather rude.  LOL

But I shall wrap my mind around your model when I can get a printed copy of it.  And will get back to you.  Such fun.  I love theorists and their theories.  There's a plethora of such on this forum.  Most of them are shrouded in math - which leaves me entirely in the dark.  If yours follows this trend then I shall be obliged to give up.  Vern has an interesting take.  Attributes all to electrons.  But he's hopelessly wrong.  JerryGG - used to post here - dominated the threads with multiple versions all subjected to multiple revisions.  Did it with such energy I felt I needed to take cover.  Could never understand a word of it.  He was the most vociferous in his objections to my experiment.  Found it highly offensive.  I found his objections offensive.  So we're quits.

[Bored chemist]

"Golly Bored chemist.  I have NEVER claimed an over unity result in the paper."
No you claimed it in another thread.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0
Had you forgotten about that, or are you hoping to mislead people into thinking that I'm putting words in your mouth?

Are you now disowning that claim?

[witsend (OP)]

Golly Bored chemist.  I have just tried that link. Unless I'm doing something wrong - it simply goes back to a post in this thread.  I am referring to a PAPER where you insist that I 'stress' over unity.  I do not.  You are either prevaricating, or you are mistaken.  The first speaks to your motives, the second to your understandings.  I'm not sure which is more compromised.

Regarding your rude reference to my work on grizelda's thread - when one makes a prediction as a required consequence to a proposed thesis - and that consequence is tested, measured and found to be correct - then the thesis is normally considered to be a full blown or partial theory depending on the test and the thesis itself.  Or is this only true if it proposed and tested by mainstream science - and the results also then conform to mainstream's requirement in term of thermodynamic laws?

In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular.

[witsend (OP)]

Guys this is a draft of a report that may explain what was intended in this experiment.  Hope it helps to clarify things.
Rosemary

TECHNOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

It is impossible to determine the actual properties of electric current flow.  Some experts attribute this to the flow of electrons that move against each other in a kind of cascading domino reaction.  Yet others simply refer to the flow of ‘charge’.  But neither school has been able to categorically state what ‘moves’ and electric current is invisible in normal circuit conditions.  Science is a field that deals in precise measurements.  And, while the properties of a current may not be known, it’s effects are measurable.  So, light a light and we can measure both the light intensity and the amount of energy delivered to generate that light intensity.  In broad terms this is known as an energy equivalence.  And in terms of this example – it means that if you have delivered 100 watts of energy – then you cannot, under any circumstances, get more than 100 watts of ‘brightness’ from that light.  This equivalence is generally referred to as ‘unity’ and the mathematical understanding is that unity cannot be exceeded.

This ‘equivalence’ is required and defined in the Laws of Thermodynamics.  These have been modified through the centuries since Newton first proposed them – but the single theme that dominates all interpretations is that you can never get back more than you put in.  Under no circumstances can you get a brighter brightness in any lamp – than the units of energy delivered to light that lamp.  No element on any stove can give off more heat than the amount of energy delivered to generate that heat.  And so it goes. 

So how then does one explain a circuit where a battery supply source barely loses its energy while it cooks a load resistor or an element that is placed in series with that supply?  This, in effect is what was claimed in a widely accredited experiment published in Quantum Magazine in October 2002.  And this is also what has now been replicated by Glen Lettenmaier in 2009 – the details of which experiment are available on Scribd – an internet publication for open source contributors.  It is also widely replicated by numerous experimenters and posted throughout the internet.  In effect, these experimentalists are proving, demonstrably and repeatably, that it is possible to deliver a great deal more energy than was ever first supplied.  That light can shine at least four times brighter.  That stove can get four times hotter – than the energy that was applied to light the light – heat the stove.  In effect there may be a requirement to include a new particle into  Thermodynamic Laws.  And this evidence  is spreading like a heat rash across the globe.    All those academics trained by each other throughout all those centuries –  appear to have simply got it wrong.

But that is only true if the measurements stand up to scrutiny.  Fortunately Tektronix availed some of these experimentalists with the use of really sophisticated measuring equipment.  As mentioned by contributors to the energetic forum blog on alternate energy, ‘argue these numbers and you must take up your quarrel with God’.  To add to the required measurements’ proof and proficiency, photographs were taken of the equipment – films were made concurrently and careful attention was paid to all possible sources of ‘distortion’ of measurement.  These factors were systematically eliminated in a series of 13 tests – culminating with empirical and absolute proof of concept.  Indeed it is possible to exceed the constraints determined by our learned and revered.  In fact there seems to be some real potential to access this energy with a zero loss of energy to the supply source.

Open source has now done what open source does best.  It first argued the evidence in a series of postings on two dominating blogs including overunity.com and energeticforum.com.  Then it prepared a paper for review and has now submitted this to the IEEE – the world’s leading professional association for the advancement of technology.  It has again taken the evidence to the experts to judge it for themselves.  And all this brings the 2002 publication to full circle.  And where that first publication was ignored by our academia – a second was rejected out of hand, a third was rejected after review, the hope now is that this last application will be more seriously considered for publication.  But there is a persistent concern that the publication will yet again be refused on the grounds of  its apparent contradiction of the almost ‘holy’ laws of  Thermodynamics. 

So it is that, for the first time, Open Source are also looking to the media to make the knowledge of the invention available to the public and to engage the public in that review process.  This is not intended to antagonise the reviewers but is proposed as a means whereby our academics can be reminded of the need for accountability.  A refusal to accept a paper based on ‘improbability’ is not a valid basis of rejection.    This time, perhaps the public themselves can require our academics to explain where these experimentalists have got it wrong –  or if they’ve got it wrong.  Frankly Open Source have lost confidence in the impartiality of academics when considering experiments that also breach Thermodynamic Laws.  The argument proposed by academics themselves is that science is only ever progressed on experimental evidence.  Therefore is it required that the paper detailing these experiments be properly evaluated and that the public be fully advised of these findings. 

The actual question is how does this circuit breach these barriers?  It was configured deliberately and predicted to crash through those unity barriers.  But how?  Here an unlikely series of events were brought into play that led RA to the conclusion that circuits could be configured to deliver far greater efficiency than classically proposed.  RA read Garry Zukov’s book ‘The Dancing Wu Li Masters.  She was fascinated by the subject but had never been trained in physics and, more to the point was also not trained in math.  Some physicists are on record as saying that God Himself is a mathematician.  But the actual requirement in a study of physics is not only the math but the symmetries that are a kind of short cut to a description of particles and particle interactions.  And through a series of patterns RA was able to establish a reasonable approximation of the actual properties of stable particles.  These patterns were then more fully developed into a magnetic field model that concluded, broadly, that all matter was made up of composites of a single fundamental bipolar particle that she proposed could be called a zipon.

Of interest is that, in a field, these particles are seen to be a kind of controlling force – fundamental to all the forces, that then organise matter into four distinct divisions each measured as a gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear force.  Also in terms of that model this particle’s universal pervasiveness is closely akin to dark matter that is seen to bind our galaxies.  In this same way it also binds amalgams of matter to create our visible planet.   In essence, the atoms that are bound into identifiable objects are actually bound by these invisible fields of particles.  The fields are plastic in nature and can move through space, and in time.  And they do this.   They organise themselves around matter in any way required to promote their intrinsic need to find a balance, or a condition of net zero charge. 

As these concepts relate to the transfer of electric energy, the model required a slight departure from conventional understanding of current flow.   She proposed that current flow comprises the movement of these magnetic fields as strings through closed circuits.  When a source was not able to find a state of balance then that imbalance is measured as potential difference.  In other words, a measurable voltage imbalance was the measure of the imbalance in the fields of zipons.   And this potential difference could be diminished if those zipons could also find a path through an electric circuit which would then alter their spin and reduce that source imbalance.  The flow of those strings of zipons comprises electric current flow.  But the zipons that come from that source will also return to that source, subject to the availability of a path through the circuitry.

And when they flow, or while they forge this path through electric circuitry, they also induce a corresponding imbalance in the inductive components of that circuit.   This is widely known.  It is seen as ‘stored’ energy.   But the difference to convention and this model is subtle.  This stored energy establishes an imbalance in the circuit material – in that resistor or that element.  Being imbalanced these fields also require an established state of balance.  And given a chance to re-establish this balance, a chance to reduce this experienced and measurable potential difference, then they, in turn induce a second flow of current, in anti-phase to the first flow of current.  So, provided that there is a path available in the circuit, it too can return its extruded fields back to it’s own supply source being the resistor or the element itself.  In other words there are two sources of energy in every one cycle of current flow through a closed circuit.  The one is induced from the supply source, the other is induced from the resistor in series with that supply.  Both have independent supply or energy sources and both are able to reduce their potential difference provided that some circuit path is made available to do this.

The availability of the path is in the circuit design itself.  Here the source battery induces the first current path cycle, clockwise.  Then that flow is interrupted by opening the switch and ‘taking away’ the required closed path.  But simultaneously there is a new path opened for the second cycle where the resistor transfers its energy onto a second path - anticlockwise.   At speed, or at fast frequencies, the two cycles are able to resonate against each other, like a swing that is first pushed in one direction and then in the other.  And the net result is that the energy that is applied from the source is then returned to the source.  The energy that is applied from the circuit is returned to the circuit.  But in both cases that energy is simply strings of zipons that are trying to get back to their respective sources in order to diminish their experienced imbalance or their measured potential differences.  So under these special circuit conditions there is not only a conservation of energy, being the zipons themselves which return to their respective sources, but there is also a conservation of charge in the supply which is then continually recharged during the second cycle of the switched circuit.

But what then explains the ‘heat’ that is measured to be dissipated at the source. Here, again in line with observation but possibly not in line with classical thought, it is proposed that the zipons that are not extruded from the material of the circuit components, remain in the material, in the inductive wire itself.  But the essential symmetry of their fields has been broken through the extrusion of some of its fields.  This break results in a state of chaos that excites these fields into a cascade of zipons that recongregate within that material – in their attempt to regain that state of balance. 

It is further proposed that the size of the zipons relates to its velocity.  In a field they are cold and fast and small and entirely undetectable.  But break those symmetries, and in a precise and inverse proportionate ratio the zipons become hot and slow and manifest.  This, in turn results in some of those zipons decaying into photons and then radiating away from the resistive material itself.  This results in the systematic degradation of the bound state of the resistor which is seen as material fatigue. 

[Bored chemist]

Golly Bored chemist.  I have just tried that link. Unless I'm doing something wrong - it simply goes back to a post in this thread. 

No, it does not. It goes to another thread called "A circuit that produces overunity results".
Do you see the subtle implication there that you are talking about an overunity system?

While I'm at it "I am referring to a PAPER where you insist that I 'stress' over unity."
No, I said you stressed the importance of the true RMS reading of a meter in that paper.
Two points about this.
"Regarding your rude reference to my work on grizelda's thread - when one makes a prediction as a required consequence to a proposed thesis - and that consequence is tested, measured and found to be correct - then the thesis is normally considered to be a full blown or partial theory depending on the test and the thesis itself. "
The finding of something that is consistent with your idea doesn't prove it. If I believe in Santa Claus and I get presents that doesn't prove he exists.
secondly, it is still impossible to prove a scientific theory so you remain both wrong and arrogant. Of course you might think I'm arrogant too, but at least I'm not claiming to have single handedly rewritten the laws of physics.

Also, this "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "
is a blatant strawman.
I never said that, so I don't have to answer for it.
On the other hand you might like to explain why you have accused me of taking such a silly stance.

[witsend (OP)]

Bored chemist,  []

It's hardly a 'subtle implication'.  I used that as a thread title with sledgehammer emphasis.  It was intended to be controversial - but is no less than the truth.  The circuit is indeed measured to dissipate energy while the supply source battery voltage climbs rather than otherwise.  Jusst check out the thread at energeticforum.com.  But - here's the thing.  This thread is intended to question when our academics lose their authority.  My applications to academics are the only actual REPORTS that I have made in earnest.  You will notice that this final paper that we have submitted - DOES NOT REFER TO OVER UNITY.  Therefore is your consstant complaint about this tedious, boring, irrelevant and misleading.

The finding of something that was PREDICTED in terms of a field model - may be considered as proof of that field model.  Unless of course you can propose where a source of energy has come into play to account for the co-efficient in excess of 8 or more than 800%.  Or where classical science proposes that it is possible to dissipate energy at no loss of energy from a battery supply.

I get it that you are not claiming that you have singlehandedly rewritten the laws of physics.  I on the other hand am. I'm not sure how one is meant to point out a discovery.  Presumably you would prefer it that I do not mention this at all.  Or would you prefer it that I pretend that someone else devised the model?  Or perhaps - to keep you happy I should deny any such thesis.  Not sure how to say it except as it is.  I proposed a model.  It predicted an anomalous result.  That result became apparent.  It is now repeatedly evident  therefore no longer anomalous.  It makes me think that the proposals in that model may be correct.  Sorry.  No other way I know of to say this.  Unless, as mentioned, you can explain those extraordinary results in terms of classical paradigms.  If you can then you stand alone among all physicists. 

I have never said that you have taken a silly stance.  I've accused you of prevarication - and a lot of other things.  Silliness never came into it.  In as much as you will not take congniscance of the facts that are now evident in this experiment then I think that your opinion is largely irrelevant - silly or otherwise.  But feel free to indulge it.  I also suspect that you struggle with these concepts and that speaks somewhat to your natural aptitudes or lack of them.  But that's your problem.  Not mine.

[glovesforfoxes]

I also suspect that you struggle with these concepts and that speaks somewhat to your natural aptitudes or lack of them.  But that's your problem.  Not mine

Actually, it kind of is. The responsibility is on the scientist to explain properly, clearly & well so that people can understand. If you can't, you won't get much support for quite a while, no matter how good your evidence is.

[witsend (OP)]

I also suspect that you struggle with these concepts and that speaks somewhat to your natural aptitudes or lack of them.  But that's your problem.  Not mine

Actually, it kind of is. The responsibility is on the scientist to explain properly, clearly & well so that people can understand. If you can't, you won't get much support for quite a while, no matter how good your evidence is.

Hi glovesforfoxes.  I cannot expect anyone to understand the model unless they first read it.  But the model is not the subject of this thread.  I'm just trying to remind you all that academics have not yet reviewed the evidence nor attended a demonstration nor tried to replicate the experiment.  And - I wonder if they will not lose their moral authority if this persists - especially in the light of the replications now going on all over the place.

[PhysBang]

But you should not expect people to take you seriously when you say that you have an over unity device and you are not a billionaire. It's really quite simple.

[witsend (OP)]

Physbang - I really don't want to go over this yet again - so am posting and earlier reply on another thread and I really don't mind if you don't take the claim seriously.   


Hi again, nixietube.

Definitely tapping into a 'heretofore' unidentified energy source.

Have spent many years trying to get academic accreditation.  Have also experimented on more significant wattages using utiltiy supply sources through bridge rectifiers.  But have never developed it for my own home uses as it's beyond my competence.  Have only just got replication now evident by experimentalists in Canada - Oregon USA - and Spain.  The USA experimentalist is developing it with private funding for commercial use - as we speak.  I believe the other two are also looking to commercialise.  Research funding required for instutional studies will only probably be available when and if our paper gets reviewed and published.  Until then there is not likely to be serious mainstream involvement unless, possibly, if the media bring this technology to our public's attention.

When and if this paper gets reviewed there will be the distinct possibility that the technology will get the required research funding.  Until this is published all applications run the danger of being considered fraudulent and there are real litigation risks in the offing. This would certainly prevent public funding - which is required to get the research completed for the technology to get it to a an expoitable condition.  That is the real difficulty that is being experienced.

My own interest in this technology is theoretical.  I think the proposed circuit is a good means to expose the energy potential - but the model itsef points to far more efficient means of harnessing this energy potential.

[Bored chemist]

Do you really think that you can rewrite physics?
Apart from anything else, to do that you need to show what's wrong with the current version.

Perhaps you could start with that.
Keep the explanations in reserve for later. Just tell us what current physics gets wrong.


Of course, if you are right then your ideas will become part of science so it will never have lost it's authority.
Presumably you will then start another thread where you claim that you never said it did.

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why you posted that nonsense about "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "

[glovesforfoxes]

Hi glovesforfoxes.  I cannot expect anyone to understand the model unless they first read it.  But the model is not the subject of this thread.  I'm just trying to remind you all that academics have not yet reviewed the evidence nor attended a demonstration nor tried to replicate the experiment.  And - I wonder if they will not lose their moral authority if this persists - especially in the light of the replications now going on all over the place.

Hi []

That's fine, & of course scientists must look at evidence - it's what science is based on! I can't say I have read the paper, I doubt I would understand it.

If academics have not reviewed it, then it is not a failure of science, or even scientists: it is a failure in communication of people. Scientists are trusted to know about their field of expertise, because they spend their lives researching it! Just as I trust a chef to make me a nice dinner..

Scientists have no real moral authority. A scientist might be an authority figure, but it is the failure of both the scientist and the people who listen if they accept everything uncritically. It seems you're prescribing too much weight for my liking for scientists to get everything right all of the time - in other words, you expect too much. A chef will sometimes ruin a meal, and a scientist will sometimes ruin the truth..

The wonderful thing about science is that is constantly adapting. Scientists are scientists for the very reason that they are interested in the truth. They can misunderstand the truth, but they are still committed to the truth.

[witsend (OP)]

Regarding your rude reference to my work on grizelda's thread - when one makes a prediction as a required consequence to a proposed thesis - and that consequence is tested, measured and found to be correct - then the thesis is normally considered to be a full blown or partial theory depending on the test and the thesis itself.  Or is this only true if it proposed and tested by mainstream science - and the results also then conform to mainstream's requirement in term of thermodynamic laws?

In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular.

Bored chemist - this is the context of my comment regarding your attitude.  Out of context it is meaningless.  Do you read these posts?  Or do you just take a stab at my meaning?

What I tried to say is that science is progressed by experimental evidence evaluated in the context of explanations.  If we refuse to consider explanations - predicted or otherwise,  then we would not have scientific disciplines.  Instead we would have belief structures.

[witsend (OP)]

Bored chemist

In truth there's no need to re-write physics.  I was possibly being a little grandiose.  All I'm proposing is that dark energy and dark matter are responsible for all bound amalgams.  In other words disassociated atoms are at their lowest energy levels.  Combine atoms into an amalgam and you introduce energy.  That's the energy that I see that we use - that is also underlying the electromagnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces.  And that energy is malleable - or useable - or exploitable - and that's what we get when we induce electric current flow - is all.  So.  I immodestly propose a modest little particle as being the source of all energy. It's not so much a re-write as a new take.

But nothing wrong with known physics.  Plenty wrong with the academic review process.  And - in the unlikely event that the model is ever to be considered a fair representation of reality - then we've got something that will address our need for clean and abundant energy.  That's exciting.  What I resent is the apparent need to apologise for these insights as they clearly offend everybody.  Can't help it if I'm right.  Sorry if I'm wrong.  But I'd prefer the facts assessed rather than my credentials.  I'm an unlikely harbinger of these things.  But there you go.  It was me that proposed this.  Hopefully our mainstream will appropriate the idea as their own - eventually.  I just want to see the technologies progressed.  We all should.  It's good news - whoever they proposer - and however it comes out in our academies.

And let's hope that scientists do re-evaluate their paradigms - as glovesforfoxes proposes.  Thus far I have seen ZERO evidence of this.

[witsend (OP)]

To believe unknown/undefined energy sources do not exist is arrogant. Just as it is arrogant to assume one is correct in a (questionable) position.

To run my colours up the mast here, at this point I have only a passing interest in your ideas. The challenge, if I can call it that, is to identify your error(s) and get you to accept them. Sadly I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important.

Spend more time on (2) in my earlier post, and a little less time on the new theory. Start again, this time assuming all your prior work is flawed. Question everything. If you still arrive at the same conclusions, then cut down on the supposition, educate yourself, and approach people for help with the question.. "What is going on here?" followed by: " I do not understand what is going on in my circuit. "Posted by nixietube on another thread.

Here's an example of that typical mindset.  I find it HUGELY offensive.  So here's my answer

nixietube - hello again.

There are no self-respecting physicists alive today who do not subscribe to dark energy and dark matter.  This is - nonetheless - considered to be a new energy source from a yet to be identified particle.  it is known to comprise 96% of the known universe - is detectable through gravitational lensing - it is cold - entirely invisible to light and  it responds to gravity.  Its distribution is throughout the universe but is clustered at galaxies and is considered to be the 'missing mass' required to explain why our galaxies don't unravel.  Notwithstanding which the most informed of electrical engineer that I know - seldom realise the significance of this.  It is a newly identified energy source that has not been fully explained.  And its particle does not conform to standard models.  And it is thought to contribute 10 times more mass to a galaxy than is evident in its light.

Now to tackle your post.  That you find it arrogant to deny new energy sources, or that you find it arrogant to assume to have found new energy sources, either way - is fatuously irrelevant.  Where did arrogance come into the equation with the discovery of dark matter?  Or lack of arrogance, or excessive pride, or humility, or shock or horror at the presumptions, at these prescriptive requirements?  Why is the emotion relevant?  The question is not whether I see your point but do you see mine?  When has science required this ridiculous dance - this skirting of the truth in order to protect the fragile egos of its members.  What absurdities you propose.  We must now first come to you - nixietube - and ask you to please explain a measurable event - lest we antagonise or affront those strange sensibilities that detect the abence or presence of pride and arrogance.  We must not point out that it was required and predicted in terms of a prior field model, but rather allow you - nixietube to assess the evidence.

Tell me who here is being arrogant?  That you require this diplomatic denial of the facts speaks volumes to the mindset that I am determined to confront.  I will not ask 'what is going on here?'  Why should I?  I know.  Nor will I say 'I do not understand what is going on in my circuit' because it would be a lie designed to pander to your ego and not to the truth. Science has NOTHING to do with diplomacy - and it has everything to do with the truth.

And you come to this argument 10 years after it was first launched.  Because you're a late comer I must now defer all further analysis and evidence while you familiarise yourself with the details of that argument? And this to give you opportunity to confirm your unscientific assessment that 'sadly' you do not believe that we have discovered an over unity / free enegy device'.  As I have neither claimed this nor see it, I agree with the latter.  I deny the former and the evidence is in my favour.

And I might add - whether you are sad or happy is immaterial.  And what science has ever been based on 'belief'.  The two terms are mutually exclusive.  You are very free with your advice.  I suggest you keep it to yourself unless you can make it relevant.   

[Bored chemist]

Did anyone else spot this?
http://xkcd.com/675/

[nixietube]

Did anyone else spot this?
http://xkcd.com/675/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHahahhaahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHA 

Perfect. I genuinely laughed so much a colleague came to check I was OK.