Comments on the McFreey paper

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Tariel Kapanadze's Devices (Moderators: verpies, Apecore) > Comments on the McFreey paper

2024-04-25, 22:44:38
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

« previous next »

Author Topic: Comments on the McFreey paper (Read 112713 times)

ion	Comments on the McFreey paper « on: 2012-09-08, 16:43:13 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	exnihiloest recently pointed to a paper by a William J. McFreey that contains a somewhat plausible explanation of the possible operation of TK's and SM's devices. This appears to be a new paper dated Aug 2012. It is a rather interesting read, but ex has cited errors. Let's discuss it here and see where it goes. The motors TK has demonstrated in early videos are certainly odd in construction. ------------------------ McFreey.pdf (587.17 kB - downloaded 3152 times.) --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #1 on: 2012-09-09, 15:54:45 »
Group: Guest	β- decay is always an attractive way to directly generate current from LENR. Pr René-Louis Vallée has proposed a way to do it with his synergetic theory in the 70's (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/synergetic.htm). Replications were tempted according to this schematic (which is not from Vallée) http://www.rexresearch.com/vallee/vallee.htm but failed. Unlike the TK's device, the frequency was low, and so, no skin effect should have occured. This point may be important if we want to concentrate the current in a thin section of conductor, in order to get a high current density that could produces the desired effect. In any case with β decay that doesn't come naturally from a unstable buclear material, but that we want produce, we have to fight the Coulomb repulsion and this is the critical point for the choice of the conductor material and for the design of the setup in matter of engineering the magnetic and electric fields to do it. The Coulomb barrier may be very high and need more energy than this we can recover after the β emission, nevertheless the energy for crossing the barrier being recoverable, it could count for almost nothing. Some thing like that: ------------------------ Comments on the McFreey paper CoulBar.jpg (18.54 kB, 491x480 - viewed 4451 times.)

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #2 on: 2012-09-12, 00:20:56 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	There could be a process that resembles beta decay at work in these devices.

giantkiller	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #3 on: 2012-09-13, 05:16:19 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1572 Frequency equals matter...	Has any work been done on the β- decay of a Leedskalnin PMH? I have seen a break done 3 weeks later and the LED still lights. The [magnetic current circulates forever] is the mantra. That being said then an iron ring is a permanent cyclotron of sorts. Does saturation of a metal loop equate to the amount of energy stored that is circulating? Or is the saturation a bias that the circulating current is traveling through? Like a different level of energy similar to skin effect but internal. I have always tried to find the basic process across all the devices and the Freey paper states it beautifully. Although he only attempts descriptions of devices with magnets in them. My thought is replace the magnet with a lc resonant circuit and use that field. Hutchison states he uses the resonant field between 2 Tesla coils and look at the effects he attains. The QuantumPulse coil disperses the radiant streams into discrete diffusion channels of isolated gases. This works like shining light through a prism. It splits up the wide bandwidth of energy separating into the channels of least resistance per bands. This fits nicely with Walter Russel's redefined periodic table of elements. The magnetic based devices are not overunity due to the extracting of energy from the flux. Decay is evident. Similar in fashion to a very slow break of a PMH. But if the magnets are a fuel source then the COP is a permissible entry into an energy saving ratio that surpasses what we have achieved currently. --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

yfree	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #4 on: 2012-09-23, 16:22:13 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ION on 2012-09-08, 16:43:13 ... It is a rather interesting read, but ex has cited errors. ... I read McFreey's articles several times and could not find there a claim that accumulation of charge is due to beta decay or that the reactions are charge non conservative. He only states that there may be charge accumulation due to transmutation reactions. These may include radiation of charged particles to the environment, which leads to charging (see for instance Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 88, 471 (1913)). In fact, McFreey's analysis considers beta decay only as a means of initiating the transmutation reactions. Also, the processes that McFreey describes have nothing to do with slow moving conduction electrons. The current in the disk material, as described in the articles, consists of fast moving charged particles, near the speed of light, capable of exciting transmutation reactions. Thus, a claim that “he is confusing the electron speed which is of order of mm/s in a conductor, and the electric wave (near the speed of light)” is artificial. The alleged flaws are nonexistent. If anything, he simply avoids discussing certain nonessential details.

ion	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #5 on: 2012-10-01, 17:20:42 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured? What would be a barebones NMR experiment that can prove some of these claims. Let's try it. yfree and PhysicsProf: any comments? This seems to be in your area of expertise. « Last Edit: 2012-10-01, 19:49:23 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #6 on: 2012-10-02, 08:25:46 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: yfree on 2012-09-23, 16:22:13 ... In fact, McFreey's analysis considers beta decay only as a means of initiating the transmutation reactions. ... A β^- decay is the reaction: n -> p+ + e- (+ ν^__e, but we don't care the antineutrino, of very low energy). When there is β decay, of course there is always transmutations. But the proton being kept in the nucleus, the energy is carried away by the electron. The kinetic energy of the electron is the only useful energy from the reaction. It can be considerable due to relativistic speeds. It comes from the mass default between neutron and proton. As already said, we see that the charge is conserved. The proton remaining static, McFreey supposes that the expelled electrons induce current in the output coil. The β^- decay is the only way invoked by McFreey to produce energy. The transmutation is the necessary byproduct.

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #7 on: 2012-10-03, 04:03:11 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: ION on 2012-10-01, 17:20:42 Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured? How about something that appears to be the radiation? No transmutation required. Not all that simple, but you could get it running in a few days if you have the supplies and a high impedance ohmmeter.

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #8 on: 2012-10-03, 08:12:24 »
Group: Guest	@Grumpy Remember that McFreey's paper is a possible explanation of the "Kapanadze's process" (and others). Presuming that it is not a scam, the "Kapanadze's process" produces energy from apparently nowhere. Providing that we don't believe in a perpetual motion of the first kind, a nuclear reaction is the less exotic explanation and so, it must be hypothesized in the first place. As nobody succeeded in duplicating the Kapanadze's device, nobody is today able to test the least hypothesis. The hypothesis should rather be considered as a help to duplicate the Kapanadze's device, because it is easier to build a machine when we have an idea about how it works.

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #9 on: 2012-10-03, 14:32:35 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-03, 08:12:24 @Grumpy Remember that McFreey's paper is a possible explanation of the "Kapanadze's process" (and others). Presuming that it is not a scam, the "Kapanadze's process" produces energy from apparently nowhere. Providing that we don't believe in a perpetual motion of the first kind, a nuclear reaction is the less exotic explanation and so, it must be hypothesized in the first place. As nobody succeeded in duplicating the Kapanadze's device, nobody is today able to test the least hypothesis. The hypothesis should rather be considered as a help to duplicate the Kapanadze's device, because it is easier to build a machine when we have an idea about how it works. I know what is says. Since you deny the possibility of "energy creation", anything that suggests this is immediately false.

Allcanadian	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #10 on: 2012-10-03, 15:39:27 »
Hero Member Posts: 2627	@Grumpy That's the thing isn't it .... ask your mechanic to double your horsepower and any fool can do it in a matter of days now ask any mechanic to double your mileage and you will get nothing but silence. It would seem we have an endless supply of ways in which to dissipate energy but very few sustainable ways to generate it. It would suggest to me that most people are not nearly as smart as they believe and we still have a lot to learn concerning the concept of energy. Why is it we understand so much about Radiation but almost nothing about Gravitation? It is also interesting to note that science has never came even remotely close to "creating" life in even the simplest form and it is the process of life which is known to concentrate energy. Living things also have the capacity to grow, they concentrate energy producing growth which allows them to concentrate even more energy. We have no process that even remotely resembles even the simplest forms of life which to be honest really does not surprise me, like I said we have a lot to learn. To quote a verse from the "Smokey and the Bandit" sound track ... We have a long way to go and a short time to get there. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #11 on: 2012-10-04, 09:06:07 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2012-10-03, 14:32:35 I know what is says. Since you deny the possibility of "energy creation", anything that suggests this is immediately false. What don't you understand in the difference between "to begin a study with the most likely hypothesis" and "to deny energy creation"? What don't you understand in the difference between "to discard perpetual motion of type 1" and "to deny energy creation"? Your speech and interpretations are very simplistic and confused.

PhysicsProf	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #12 on: 2012-10-04, 13:10:43 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2993	Quote from: ION on 2012-10-01, 17:20:42 Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured? What would be a barebones NMR experiment that can prove some of these claims. Let's try it. yfree and PhysicsProf: any comments? This seems to be in your area of expertise. McFreey writes: Quote The energy comes from transmutation of the disk material and manifests itself as a pulse of very high current in the disk or disks. I would start with a challenge to find the NUMBERS associated with this claim: HOW MANY transmutations per second are required to give the effects seen? I think you will find it is a VERY large number. Next is to check whether the NUMBER of transmutations agrees QUANTITATIVELY with the observed output energy. I should note that by doing this exercise -- being QUANTITATIVE -- we can better make progress in sorting out reasonable/evidence-based hypotheses from hand-waving. I gave a similar challenge years ago to Pons & Fleischman -- and my conclusion as I did the numbers and compared with observations was: the excess heat (if real) was NOT due to d-d fusion. Note that I'm not saying there was no xs heat -- just that it was not due to d-d cold fusion as P&F claimed. I think most researchers in the "cold fusion" field now belatedly agree with me -- the xs heat was not due to cold d-d fusion! It seems many have claimed "excess heat" even before P&F without insisting that it is nuclear in origin, including Peter Davey. (His two-bell system involved two electrodes in water, etc.) I will let someone else due the numbers for the McFreey claims re: transmutation -- he really should do the numbers himself, right? Note: I will be away from town today and tomorrow, but expect to be back for responses on Saturday. « Last Edit: 2012-10-04, 13:51:50 by PhysicsProf »

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #13 on: 2012-10-04, 13:35:30 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-04, 09:06:07 What don't you understand in the difference between "to begin a study with the most likely hypothesis" and "to deny energy creation"? What don't you understand in the difference between "to discard perpetual motion of type 1" and "to deny energy creation"? Your speech and interpretations are very simplistic and confused. I am just suggesting that you look at "energy creation" rather than transmutation, though "energy creation" is against your "religion". I also suggest a look at other possible ways to induce current. Those are the only two ways a real anomalous electrical device may work, and only one of these is correct.

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #14 on: 2012-10-04, 17:13:52 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2012-10-04, 13:35:30 I am just suggesting that you look at "energy creation" rather than transmutation, though "energy creation" is against your "religion". Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. This is the sign of your total lack of rational arguments. I have no religion. Present me a creation of energy from nothing, and it will be my religion! . Quote I also suggest a look at other possible ways to induce current. Those are the only two ways a real anomalous electrical device may work, and only one of these is correct. What ways? You can suggest anything. If you don't provide facts and logical reasoning supporting your suggestions, they are useless. This is not my method. Permit me to have one different from yours or is it a too strong requirement? In any case, when you said "you deny...", it was not a suggestion but an affirmation (moreover false). Quote Those are the only two ways a real anomalous electrical device may work, and only one of these is correct. My mind is not limited to these two possibilities only. You should keep your beliefs for yourself, or provide intellectual matter with them, otherwise from an operational viewpoint, they are just noise. Note that according to its title, this thread concerns "comments on the McFreey's paper" which proposes nuclear reactions as source of energy. The question here is not the enumeration of fuzzy alternatives according to preconceived ideas about energy, but a discussion on the merits of this paper. It would be nice to stay on the subject.

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #15 on: 2012-10-04, 17:26:47 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-10-04, 13:10:43 ... I think most researchers in the "cold fusion" field now belatedly agree with me -- the xs heat was not due to cold d-d fusion! It seems many have claimed "excess heat" even before P&F without insisting that it is nuclear in origin, including Peter Davey. (His two-bell system involved two electrodes in water, etc.) In any case there is not only excess heat but also transmutations. Many papers about LENR present results from mass spectrometry, showing atoms that were not present at the start of the process.

PhysicsProf	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #16 on: 2012-10-04, 17:38:33 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2993	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-04, 17:26:47 In any case there is not only excess heat but also transmutations. Many papers about LENR present results from mass spectrometry, showing atoms that were not present at the start of the process. Yes, and there are a few neutrons, too! BUT -- can anyone be QUANTITATIVE? Are the NUMBERS commensurate with the xs heat? Answer me that. PS -- perhaps there are TWO separate effects here, small LENR -- and xs heat. I'm getting tired of repeating myself! but hope you guys can understand.

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #17 on: 2012-10-04, 18:42:59 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-10-04, 17:38:33 Yes, and there are a few neutrons, too! BUT -- can anyone be QUANTITATIVE? Are the NUMBERS commensurate with the xs heat? Answer me that. PS -- perhaps there are TWO separate effects here, small LENR -- and xs heat. I'm getting tired of repeating myself! but hope you guys can understand. If there is LENR, there is excess heat according to the mass default from E=M*C² (providing that the nuclear energy is mainly transformed into heat). I agree that quantified measurements are required to know if there are two effects or only one. Imho it's very difficult because there are never an enormous quantity of heat and consequently not many transmutations should be needed if the heat comes from transmutations.

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #18 on: 2012-10-04, 20:11:24 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-04, 17:13:52 Ad homonem attacks are not acceptable. This is the sign of your total lack of rational arguments. I have no religion. Present me a creation of energy from nothing, and it will be my religion! . What ways? You can suggest anything. If you don't provide facts and logical reasoning supporting your suggestions, they are useless. This is not my method. Permit me to have one different from yours or is it a too strong requirement? In any case, when you said "you deny...", it was not a suggestion but an affirmation (moreover false). My mind is not limited to these two possibilities only. You should keep your beliefs for yourself, or provide intellectual matter with them, otherwise from an operational viewpoint, they are just noise. Note that according to its title, this thread concerns "comments on the McFreey's paper" which proposes nuclear reactions as source of energy. The question here is not the enumeration of fuzzy alternatives according to preconceived ideas about energy, but a discussion on the merits of this paper. It would be nice to stay on the subject. You should have figured out by now, that I say many things to you, and others, just to see how you will reply.

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #19 on: 2012-10-04, 20:22:41 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	In the interest of staying on topic: http://www.humanresonance.org/transmutation.html Quote 100 pounds of copper was placed in a single phonon resonance device and produced 800 troy ounces of gold and platinum. Several ounces of gold and platinum have been refined and tested by independent facilities. This is the world's largest demonstration of a low energy nuclear event. This was accomplished using standard household electrical power within 30 days. EDIT: http://www.rexresearch.com/champion/champion.htm « Last Edit: 2012-10-04, 20:49:42 by Grumpy »

giantkiller	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #20 on: 2012-10-04, 21:07:18 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1572 Frequency equals matter...	Frequency equals matter... --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

exnihiloest	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #21 on: 2012-10-05, 13:11:34 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2012-10-04, 20:11:24 You should have figured out by now, that I say many things to you, and others, just to see how you will reply. I have contempt for this kind of vain speech. No interest.

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #22 on: 2012-10-05, 13:53:03 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-10-05, 13:11:34 I have contempt for this kind of vain speech. No interest. Yet, you always reply, like a puppet when I pull the string.

ion	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #23 on: 2012-10-05, 14:15:15 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	This is not a wrestling match for the amusement of onlookers. Let's get on with the important work!! --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Grumpy	Re: Comments on the McFreey paper « Reply #24 on: 2012-10-05, 17:09:17 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	~

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-04-25, 22:44:38

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2