PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-08-21, 22:35:53
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Author Topic: The Patent Of William Barbat  (Read 99726 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3056
It's turtles all the way down
Sometimes, when things get ugly in a bar, the participants agree to "take it outside" out of respect for the establishment.

Perhaps we can set up a thread for this, as long as the rules of the forum are observed. for now, maybe do it by PM.

Meanwhile why not chill out, relax. I'm sure if you fellows met each other in a bar, you would have a fun and lively exchange, maybe even become good friends.

Forums have such narrow bandwidth, this kind of thing often occurs. Try to remember,  we are human beings behind those "handles" and we suffer our own life problems.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Group: Guest
Quarktoo, just be civil and exercise good behaviour and then I'm cool.  I am sure that you have heard of British English vs. American English?  This place is open to multiple viewpoints, which is a good thing.  Do your thing with Grumpy and company I am going to stay out of this thread from this point on.  Try to avoid the temptation to drop another snide derogatory remark, time to be a man.
   
Group: Guest
 :)  :)  :)  :)  Merry Christmas everyone ???  :)  :)  :)  :)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
So Grumpy,

Here is my last post on this matter and a thought experiment for you. (the troll is back)

We have an electrolysis circuit driven by a transformer. If electrons are just being pumped around in a circle then why does the water split? Wouldn't the cathode supply just as many electrons as the anode attracted?

And here is the ninja death blow...

Electrons can't jump from the secondary coil to the primary coil because of the insulation on the wire. Now where did all those electrons go?

Checkmate.

 - Quarktoo has unsubscribed and left the building.

Flies always try that death blow trick, but the spider always wins...LOL!  the "evil eye" doesn't work on me either!  hahaha!

Electrolysis is open-circuit.

The electrons don't have to jump from coil to coil.  Is this what they do during electromagnetic induction?  The  only requirement to have a conduction current in the second coil is that you have to make the electrons move.  You do not have to add energy to these electrons, but you do have to expend energy to make them move.  This is my point: perform less work to move the electrons and you have what would be considered "gain" compared to a less efficient method of induction. Yes, it is this simple.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
In regard to the open wire with AC electrostatic action, region, field, or snowflakes:

"charge" goes into the open wire and back out or otherwise reverses + then - then + then -

Each time this charge changes, it induces a change in the shorted coil.  According to Tesla, shrting the coil or connecting it to ground increases the induced current (see my Kapanadze diagram for another example).  Coulomb's Law applies to static charges, our charge is time-dependent.  If you have ever pulsed a coil with HV DC pulses of a few ns, you will quickly find that the ES force is much stronger than a static ES force.  So, less work and more output because my time-dependent ES field decreases the amount of work required to move an electron.  No fancy terms required, no laws violated, and no hiding from the MIB.

Before anyone says ES induction is "weak", stand beneath a EHV transmission line while a switching transient is flowing along the wire overhead.  I'll send flowers.  Some may recall that Tesla's ES induction experiments that led to his Magnifying Transmitter start with this effect.

We can expand on the images of Tesla's Electrostatic Induction techniques here. Let's start with this rotated image from Grump's post. This particular drawing intrigued me, since  it satisfies some of the TPU criteria. Especially note the coupling transformer reflecting energy between the two other galvanically isolated coils.

If Grumpy could supply the patent text for this particular drawing, we can explore this further. Also the legends are not that clear, perhaps a higher resolution picture?

If my guess is right, electrostatic pulses shock excite the coils separated by the capacitor. This induces strong currents to couple into the overwindings and into the coupling transformer.

Usable voltage output is produced across the capacitor or the unterminated ends of the coils. Not sure about this without the patent text for this drawing.

The Tesla images are from page 335 of "The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla".  I don't think he ever patented it, as was common for him (just too much to do).
Google Books pdf link:  (it is a big file)

http://books.google.com/books/download/The_inventions_researches_and_writings_o.pdf?id=bhrreukJiLgC&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U141VukA2rDYWUEx7VxQmsvnNETlA

Google Books Link to read:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bhrreukJiLgC&printsec=frontcover&dq="The+Inventions,+Researches,+and+Writings+of+Nikola+Tesla"&source=bl&ots=OBR_HlGGOB&sig=FSFrAWZGr4F0i8o5zcwTnYolwJ4&hl=en&ei=wLILTeGwJIK8lQfY3tW7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2514
Quarktoo
Quote:
How come I unsubscribed and still get notifications?
---------
No No ,Mile High unsubscribed from this thread,with all that unsubscribing it takes time to proccess!

Chet

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
Q2,

Getting back to the crux of OU, are you saying that additional energy has to be added, released, or otherwise made available to get OU?

EDIT:
I pose this question to everyone on this site.  Do you believe that additional energy from any source, leads to OU?


   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1170
...

I don't need your bullshit.  You called me a "moron," which is probably about the tenth time you have used a derogatory term about me.  Keep it up and you will most likely be booted off of this forum.

And all of the other participants on this forum shouldn't just stand for this type of behaviour and avert your eyes.  At some point you should have the guts to speak up and say something about it.

MileHigh

Your assessment is "right on."

Unfortunately, some "brilliant" people exhibit a twisted,
juvenile state of emotionalism and "superiority."  I'm
afraid Quarktoo clearly, by his own hand, fits into this
category of dysfunction.

It would be gratifying to see a "turnaround" with a
demonstration of mature behavior but, once again,
by his own hand, that is not gonna happen.  Apparently
there is too much pleasure derived from the act of
putting others down.
- - - - - - - - - -

The "shorted secondary" technique is one that is
widely employed in the shaded pole induction motor
for the purpose of producing a phase shifted rotating
magnetic field.

It is very difficult to visualize the production of any
over-unity by this technique.





---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
Q2,

Getting back to the crux of OU, are you saying that additional energy has to be added, released, or otherwise made available to get OU?

EDIT:
I pose this question to everyone on this site.  Do you believe that additional energy from any source, leads to OU?

Ah-ha!  Not a single reply to this question...how very interesting.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 12
OK, let's try to balance the theoretical debate (it was/is great!) with a few practical 'let's just try this' ideas.
We must isolate and replicate the core effect, then complete and optimize the system.

So, I'm the squirrel, I got the nuts (I don't care where they came from or how small the particles are) and they're
on the bench, so where do I start if I'm told I'm making a pecan pie? I'm a squirrel and I don't cook!

So, how does one isolate the core effect? Will cuprous oxide give a measurable effect or does one need a more
complex semiconductor? Low or high frequency? Thick or thin wire, copper or iron coated, and for which coil?

So, what are your ideas for taking the first step? Reasoned or crazy, just let it out.

tak
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2514
Well
I.ve never seen a certain person do a repost ,
Q2
Quote:
In case anyone missed it - buried under our BS

On the other hand, if that were a iron wire coil with a copper / copper oxide coating, then you would have the best of both worlds.

Why don't you have a look at cable TV coax wire. Iron core wire with a copper coating. Very high velocity wire since the iron keeps that skin effect up toward the top and it adds dimensional stability. The shallow skin effect coupled with the rigid wire would probably make the insulation fragile and easily damaged during winding.

Stan Meyer also used composite wire. Look at fig 10-4 on his notes and notice the word composite describing the stainless steel wire.
--------------------------------
And as far as the occasional Dust ups that go on!
I.m surprised we aren't seperated with steel gages!!

Tak .
Perhaps we make a list of things to ask William?

The above Coax would be one I will ask [appropriate?]
Your coating  type would be another.
Questions?
WW said if he had more info he would attempt a replication.
what info??
Chet
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
open from the perspective of the water is not a piece of wire, but more like a giant cube (tank of water)

Isn't electrolysis just charge separation?

I'm not pissed at all.  I just realized that everyone trying to understand OU is looking to convert from existing energy and add it to the process or source additional energy and add it to the process. 

It doesn't work that way at all. 

Anyone who thinks it does should stick with the Nuclear and Plasma Dudes.  Anyone who thinks otherwise should look for a process that "runs with gain".

I started a poll:  Additional energy is required for OU or not?
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=461.msg8038#msg8038
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
The question is vague and you tend to speak in riddles and I tend to speak in double entendre.

"Do you believe that additional energy, from any source, is required to achieve OU?" What about to initiate the process? I could never take a poll with such a tricky question.

What produces that "gain". Do you see how you use terms like "field" or "gain" that are hollow if they can't be fully explained down to a particle level?

If you expend 1 joule of energy and get ten joules in return, you are running with gain.  As for the particle level, I don't believe in particles.  They keep smashing particles and finding new smaller particles, all with no gain in sight.

We now tune back to Barbat...and all that.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr

Grumpy's stock value tanks.


I'm holding aces and faces, not the "dead man's hand".

Which devices do you think are real working OU devices?  You mention some names like Thane, that I think are total BS.

My list of devices that I believe are OU:

Steven Mark's TPU
Kapanadze Device demonstrated in the garden
Aspden Concentric Capacitor Generator
Ed Gray Device
Moray Device

Tesla's MAgnifier may be in Tesla's hands
Barbat's Device may be with some adjustments
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2609
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
...

For the air core case, everything is very similar with the exception that you can "saturate" that much sooner.  There is a limited capacity for the volume of space between the two two coils to store energy.  So you run into a "wall" if your excitation voltage and load resistance demand an energy transfer per cycle that is beyond the capacity of the air core and inherent resistance in the wires of both cores to sustain.  This will result in the load on the secondary not being reflected back to the primary.  The coupling will be too weak and the load on the primary side will appear to be at a much higher resistance than it really is on the secondary side.  That could be developed further but I am done for now!

Anyway, thoughts and opinions welcome.

MileHigh

Yes, I believe everything you said is essentially correct ;)

.99
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
You forgot - Hubbard, Stan Meyer, Methernitha, Puharich, ultrasonic water heater, and all things particle! - Just to name a few.

I forgot Methernitha.  Hubbard is possible, but iffy as I have seen reports that he had some sort of transmitter on land during that boat run.

Anything to with water to hydrogen or HHO, I do not consider OU.  However, when the work required is reduced and it falls under these names, you believe it, but put the same spin on induction and you balk at it.

No shorted coil is Kapanadze either - depends on what you are doing. 

Anyone who has talked with me over the years knows that I can not see youtube videos.  There was a good researcher here a while ago that went by the username "Darkspeed".  He was into Gray very heavy and had all sorts of info on his setup, even the vacuum valves and such, great detailed pictures.  He was getting some crazy effects in his experiments, then he just stopped posting.

Anyway, unless you have the actual work of these indivuals or detailed plans, then there is always an element of speculation.

I see you passed over my comments on V=WQ, and my reduction of the work required by anomalously increasing the force with a pulsed coil.  The experiment is so simple anyone can do it.  I posted a video of it a couple of years ago.  Seems that you selectively target your attack, avoiding the strongholds and going for the cannon fodder.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1170
...
 Edison needed 4000 experiments to come up with a lead acid battery.
...

+=>  ?


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
"Target your attack"?  Bold type?  Liar! You are pissed. Do you need a nappy?

I think you are the one avoiding strongholds with statements like "I don't care about particles". Nobody does a wax-off on particles and walks away unscathed. It's like saying I don't care about God, I just want to get to heaven. (Man... I'm killing him with symilies huh?)  O0 (I just love strategically stabbing him in the heart with those Santa smiley things too!)

As for your V=WO.. Do you really expect me to know what you are talking about? Trying to communicate with you is like trying to talk to a deaf mute from Kundfredgredaland in a lost dialect. Sorry I don't know about your video a few years ago or what rights you have over your network.

Let's see how you like it:
Do you know what color socks I am wearing right now? Why not! Are you avoiding my feet?

Tell me Grumpula, how did that make you feel?

I'm not mad, I am drinking Rum and Cherry Pepsi though, keeps things in perspective and takes the edge off.

My post about V=WQ - writing it wrong is deliberate, and shows you are probably unfamiliar with it.  I suddenly find it enlightening when someone dishes out he OU smackdown, but doesn't know how work related to electricity.  I hear you talkin', but you walk with a limp.

I also see that you blew past the Linden experiment that Baunmann performed.

Where can that quote by Feynman be found?  I don't see how a little influence from the A-field is "more out than in".

Potter's page has some interesting stuff.  Does Testatika have cores in those cans?
http://www.linux-host.org/energy/principles.htm

Go down to the Linden Experiment:
diagram is attached and it claims that Baunmann performed this experiment if front of witnesses.

  My point about electrons is that we perform "work" to make them move and keep them moving, but they are not lost like space junk shot into the sun.  The relationship between the work required in joules, the amount of charge in coulombs, and the voltage in volts is: V=W/Q    This is not the only way to move electrons and if you can find a better way then you can move more with less.  I lower the work required, it only looks OU from other perspectives.  So, I think the whole show can be reduced to very simple principles.   I did a lot of tests before that I did not really understand and misinterpreted, but they make sense now and I was so damn close that I didn't know it. 


So, based on the simple equation V=W/Q, means that W=VQ.
W = work in joules
V = volts (between two points and considered a force here)
Q = charge

Using arbitrary numbers, if it normally takes 10 joules of work to move 1 Coulomb of charge with a force of 10 volts then:

W=VQ and 10=10*1

So, if I use a different method of moving this charge that requires less work, then I can move more charge with the same amount of work.  This is the same result if I increase the "force" (voltage) and the work remains the same.

W=V(10*Q) or W=(10*V)Q

Either way, you get more for less.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
Here is a little more background on W=VQ

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elewor.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tq4CTp-PbYcC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=work+charge+voltage+derived&source=bl&ots=G5sOYgpNrm&sig=DzWIsnt3V1oH8RGC9ga_xFP44vo&hl=en&ei=XzgMTcHFEIeglAe-huTJDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=work charge voltage derived&f=false

W stands for "work" which is measured in joules or other units...

Q represents charge measured in Coulomb's - see above links for the Q

Your attempt to troll me is futile.  Your credibility is now "less than zero", but Jami Gertz is still hot!

Crow is best fried.  Enjoy! 

P.S. Hope that limp gets better.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr
I said I had increased a force not OU.  I no longer believe in that term anyway.  OU is as bad as "field".

The experiment is simple:

Pulse HV DC of 2kv or more through an avalanche transistor stack with a coax delay line of about 6 feet or so.  It can free-run.  Apply the pulses to a coil of copper wire that is about 1200 feet or more formed into a coil - like a Brooks coil.  Coil dims do not really matter.  I use HT insulated, #28 mag wire.  Power supply needs to supply enough current to avalanche the transistors, about 5ma.

Pulse this coil and compare the attraction to a conductive object to the attractive force when the coil has steady DC applied.  It is readily observed without requiring measurements.

An additional observation is that a compass, being conductive, will align to the electric field around the coil, and also to the field in the wire if you pass the pulses through the compass needle. 

As for being an engineer, everyone knows I work in manufacturing, not electronics or physics.

Hyperphysics is from he University of Georgia, I think.

SI units may be a standard, but the equation still holds with arbitrary variables, which I noted.   So take that BS elsewhere.  You obviously have no counter argument for the work equation. 

The hairy thing with a crack in it, sitting on the platter, is your ass.  I suggest you re-attach it.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2514
Well ,
That went well!
I see you guys pulled out the steel cage last night?[Thought that went to the dump?]
Will this evenings event be a ladders, tables and chairs  show?  So while you two are hammering each other with your schmekles,
Rome continues to burn!!

How about some common ground ?
Can we find any besides the blood covered mess you Two are now standing in!!

I have to say it made for some good reading [and giggles].

But you are some very fart smellahs,
surely you can start some where?[common ground]

Or I'll ask the wife to pick up some popcorn!!

Chet

PS
Or maybe talk about whats going on here?

The experiment is simple:

Pulse HV DC of 2kv or more through an avalanche transistor stack with a coax delay line of about 6 feet or so.  It can free-run.  Apply the pulses to a coil of copper wire that is about 1200 feet or more formed into a coil - like a Brooks coil.  Coil dims do not really matter.  I use HT insulated, #28 mag wire.  Power supply needs to supply enough current to avalanche the transistors, about 5ma.

Pulse this coil and compare the attraction to a conductive object to the attractive force when the coil has steady DC applied.  It is readily observed without requiring measurements.

An additional observation is that a compass, being conductive, will align to the electric field around the coil, and also to the field in the wire if you pass the pulses through the compass needle. 
-----------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

I am just going to comment on your "off topic" discussion here for the fun of it.  You said:

Quote
So, based on the simple equation V=W/Q, means that W=VQ.
W = work in joules
V = volts (between two points and considered a force here)
Q = charge

Using arbitrary numbers, if it normally takes 10 joules of work to move 1 Coulomb of charge with a force of 10 volts then:

W=VQ and 10=10*1

So, if I use a different method of moving this charge that requires less work, then I can move more charge with the same amount of work.  This is the same result if I increase the "force" (voltage) and the work remains the same.

W=V(10*Q) or W=(10*V)Q

Either way, you get more for less.

Let's try to look at this using good old analogies.  The equation states that work is equal to voltage times charge.

Now we know that power is the "through variable" times the "across variable."  In the past I have stated that the "through variable" is current (which flows through something) and voltage is the "across variable" (you measure voltage across two points).

Also, to get to energy, we know that it is equal to power times time, or,  the "through variable" times the "across variable" times time.

It all makes sense, because (current x time) = charge.

Therefore, work = power x time = (voltage x current) x time = voltage x (current x time) = voltage x charge.

So, you can look at that as saying it takes work to take a certain amount of charge and "lift it up" to a higher voltage.  (Side note, when you think about it that's exactly what a battery does)

So let's use a simple analogy where electric current is equivalent to the flow of water.  Charge is then simply an amount of water, say for example a bucket of water.  Let's say that voltage is equivalent to the height.  (Note that you always measure height between two points.)

So here is an analogy for W=VQ plugging in your values where 10 = 10*1:

You have a big bucket of water sitting on the floor.  You lift the bucket up and put it on a 10-foot high shelf.  That's it.

Note that the act of moving the bucket of water up 10 feet could have been done by pumping the water through a hose also.  Hence you can envision "current flow" when you lift the bucket up by hand and move it.

So leading into the question:  You often speculate that somehow you can do a work-around to "trick" the system and as a result gain energy.

Quote
So, if I use a different method of moving this charge that requires less work

So the question is how do you raise the bucket of water 10 feet up in the air with a work-around that uses less energy?

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2514
PS
quarktoo,
This forum offers Moderator status at the Build benches!

Chet
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2913
tExB=qr

So the question is how do you raise the bucket of water 10 feet up in the air with a work-around that uses less energy?


That's it.  I am proposing that time-dependent electrostatic induction can accomplish this feat.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3056
It's turtles all the way down
That's it.  I am proposing that time-dependent electrostatic induction can accomplish this feat.

Maybe this will help...not sure.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-08-21, 22:35:53