I believe it's crucially important for any system to have a working principle of operation, as it's the only way that a device can be reliably replicated and improved.
This does not necessarily mean pages of mathematics, that can come later (as it did with steam power and electrical engineering and others).
I thought I'd start a thread covering just principles of operation for anything in the modern world. 1-2 sentences, as broad and simple as possible.
Anyone can post anything here, just try to keep to 1-2 sentences and cover any critical factors required for the process to work.
It can be any conventional or overunity system.
Internal Combustion
Hot gas of combustion exerts a pressure that can force a piston to move in a cylinder, performing useful work.
Critical factors: combustible fuel, oxygen, compression, ignition, and timing.
Diesel Combustion
Combustible fuel is injected at high pressure+temperature will autoignite, relieving the need for manual ignition and improving overall efficiency.
Critical factors: Internal combustion, plus higher compression, auto ignitable fuel, and high-pressure injection.
Sir
Regarding ICE ( internal Combustion Engine)
There is an experiment on the board ( Tommy Reeds Bench at Stefan's open source forum) which claims
to alter the temperature at which thermolysis takes place in water!
The catalyst for this is lithium nitrate at 20 ppm in water at 500 psi
Runs an ICE as per Sam Leaches modified engines from many years ago .
Tom is approaching this experiment (and many others) with a static pressure chamber !
He is presently working out of town for perhaps another month , but anxious to get to these
experiments!
Story of claim below !
Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
The below screen shot was part of a Tom Bearden memorial topic
Started by member AllCanadian when Bearden passed !
Quote from: Chet K on 2022.08.07, 20:02:36
Regarding ICE ( internal Combustion Engine)
There is an experiment on the board ( Tommy Reeds Bench at Stefan's open source forum) which claims
to alter the temperature at which thermolysis takes place in water!
Therefore (whether it works or not):
Tommy Reed, Exotic internal combustionCertain chemicals can cause thermolysis breakdown of water at high pressures without added energy.
Critical factors: 500psi+, lithium nitrate catalyst.
That's a respectable amount of pressure. The one Thomas Edison discovered is that accetylene will dissolve into acetone at 200 atmospheres pressure. Water burns like petrol when one oz of the green liquid is added to a gallon of water. He demonstrated the liquid, then offered $50,000 to anyone who could figure it out. No one could, so he finally just published the formula.
_____
Raise my species or I'll raise it myself - Renaissance Man
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Engineering/Download/8688
Above link provided by member matu at Stefan's
It provides a principle of operation of Figuera patent
With examples (math and ...
Post #1362 here
https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg570004/#new
Chet
Figuera's patent analysis is very interesting as it provides a theoretical foundation.
However, it has a weak point, which is the explanation of the intensity of the effect, which is directly proportional to the density of ions in the air.
The author tells us: "the ion density of the atmosphere is 4*1025 electrons/m3, gave us 3*1010 C/s that may be collected."
The ion density of the atmosphere depends on the altitude and I don't know where the author gets this value which seems to me very overestimated.
I can't find recent values, but in the attached table of a study from the 1970s (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj1965/50/4/50_4_355/_pdf), we see that this density is less than 500 ions/cm3 below an altitude of 2 Km, or 5*108 ions/m3. This is far from the stated value of 4*1025, it is one millionth of a billionth of this value.
Then there are positive and negative ions, and I do not see how to recover one without the other, which would cancel the effect.
Maybe the author used the atom/molecular density, he did refer to the necessity for an effective single turn high voltage in order to ionise the air, so it is not using the natural ions.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.17, 09:58:39
Maybe the author used the atom/molecular density, he did refer to the necessity for an effective single turn high voltage in order to ionise the air, so it is not using the natural ions.
Smudge
I would expect it to use both, and additive.
Regards
Mike
What is the point of producing ions, if it is to recover them later when we had them from the start?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.17, 09:20:26
Then there are positive and negative ions, and I do not see how to recover one without the other, which would cancel the effect.
Recently came across pic attached, seemed somewhat relevant. A thermionic valve also comes to mind.
Quote
What is the point of producing ions, if it is to recover them later when we had them from the start?
Since we're hunting for principles of operation, I would start by asking what properties do ions have that an equivalent low-voltage solid-state circuit does not? ???
Ions are affected by electric as well as magnetic fields, and they possess inertia. Then we compare that to an equivalent LC circuit on a breadboard.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.17, 20:15:18
What is the point of producing ions, if it is to recover them later when we had them from the start?
To seed further capture, apples for apples, oranges for oranges, that is how I see it. The medium has to be correct.
Regards
Mike
Quote from: Centraflow on 2022.08.18, 07:02:20
To seed further capture, apples for apples, oranges for oranges, that is how I see it. The medium has to be correct.
Reminds me of this. Though there would have to be some kind of asymmetric cycling action going on in order to maintain the suck.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.08.18, 13:39:45
Reminds me of this. Though there would have to be some kind of asymmetric cycling action going on in order to maintain the suck.
STEAP is Asymmetrical, there are different resonant points which move.
Regards
Mike
Here is a moving charge sensor. Might prove helpful...
http://www2.ece.rochester.edu/~jones/demos/ahern.html
What distinguishes Ahern's instrument from other charge detection and measurement apparatuses used in electrostatics demonstrations, such as the conventional leaf electroscope and the tonal electrostatic voltmeter, is that Ahern's device responds to the movement of positive (+) and negative (-) electric charge toward or away from a sensing electrode.
The instrument is much more sensitive than most hand-held charge detectors. During demonstrations of electrostatic phenomena -- for example, triboelectrification -- the moving charge sensor can be used to sense the charge and to determine its sign.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.08.18, 16:07:32
Here is a moving charge sensor. Might prove helpful...
http://www2.ece.rochester.edu/~jones/demos/ahern.html
What distinguishes Ahern's instrument from other charge detection and measurement apparatuses used in electrostatics demonstrations, such as the conventional leaf electroscope and the tonal electrostatic voltmeter, is that Ahern's device responds to the movement of positive (+) and negative (-) electric charge toward or away from a sensing electrode.
The instrument is much more sensitive than most hand-held charge detectors. During demonstrations of electrostatic phenomena -- for example, triboelectrification -- the moving charge sensor can be used to sense the charge and to determine its sign.
Grumpy
Would seem a "must have " for harvesting experiments!
Very cool indeed !!
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.08.18, 16:07:32
Here is a moving charge sensor. Might prove helpful...
http://www2.ece.rochester.edu/~jones/demos/ahern.html
What distinguishes Ahern's instrument from other charge detection and measurement apparatuses used in electrostatics demonstrations, such as the conventional leaf electroscope and the tonal electrostatic voltmeter, is that Ahern's device responds to the movement of positive (+) and negative (-) electric charge toward or away from a sensing electrode.
The instrument is much more sensitive than most hand-held charge detectors. During demonstrations of electrostatic phenomena -- for example, triboelectrification -- the moving charge sensor can be used to sense the charge and to determine its sign.
How cleverly simple O0
Regards
Mike
(Posted in the 'Aether and Science' thread but I think it more appropriate to respond here)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.23, 08:43:25
It's crazy how many overunity specialists tell us how to get free energy, without ever showing us a proof of concept with a device they have built. Some don't build anything, others are competent but not in FE, they build setups with beautiful red and blue coils but we don't see any particular effect.
There's always the possibility that someone can stumble onto something that works without being well-understood, even by the inventor. Damascus swordsmiths of the 17th century were making swords with carbon nanotubes that weren't officially discovered until hundreds of years later.
(see: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/carbon-nanotechnology-in-an-17th-century-damascus-sword)
There's also the opposite possibility, someone may have a perfectly viable theory or principle that is not capable of implementing it. Probably everyone here could explain in great detail how an internal combustion engine works, but only a tiny fraction of us would actually be able to build one.
That said, there is a lot of fluff and flak and distraction that does demand some strategy for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I've narrowed my strategy to the following:
* Do they show or describe a principle of operation, or at least some operating parameters of how it functions? Just showing a spinning motor, even if it's real, tells us basically nothing about how it works.
Real or fake, no engineerable details = useless to our work.
* Do they use articulate language/equipment/math? Someone using words like impedance and reactance correctly demonstrates depth of knowledge in the field. I'd trust someone making VNA plots over someone using a pair of dollar-store multimeters. :P
* Do they actually build things? (Armchair engineers) You can't really be a car mechanic unless you actually work on cars. :P
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.08.23, 13:07:50
...
There's always the possibility that someone can stumble onto something that works without being well-understood, even by the inventor.
I am well aware of this. But this one knows what he has built and can explain to others how to build the same thing.
And before that, he should present what he has done to third parties who can measure the effects. Then even the skeptics will be convinced.
We are in the 19th century, electric motors do not yet exist. It was enough for Oersted, who did not understand the principle of the effect he was observing, to show that a current in a wire near a compass could deflect the compass needle, and everyone understood that an electric motor was now possible. There is no need for more.
Quote
There's also the opposite possibility, someone may have a perfectly viable theory or principle that is not capable of implementing it. Probably everyone here could explain in great detail how an internal combustion engine works, but only a tiny fraction of us would actually be able to build one.
Contrary to the "overunity", the explosion engines did not question the knowledge of the time. They were in the continuity of the first steam engines of the 18th century, so they could be analyzed with the known physical principles and engineering tools.
When this is no longer the case, when a theory contradicts what is known, then a proof of concept is required, a simple experiment showing the claimed new effect, such as overunity.
This is what Vedmedenko has just done recently by showing us the 2 spherical magnets that go up in the test tubes when you rotate them. No need for more.
This is what those who claim to have free energy or who claim to know how to have it, are unable to do, simply because they don't have it and don't know how to have it.
Quote
That said, there is a lot of fluff and flak and distraction that does demand some strategy for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I've narrowed my strategy to the following:
* Do they show or describe a principle of operation, or at least some operating parameters of how it functions? Just showing a spinning motor, even if it's real, tells us basically nothing about how it works.
Real or fake, no engineerable details = useless to our work.
* Do they use articulate language/equipment/math? Someone using words like impedance and reactance correctly demonstrates depth of knowledge in the field. I'd trust someone making VNA plots over someone using a pair of dollar-store multimeters. :P
* Do they actually build things? (Armchair engineers) You can't really be a car mechanic unless you actually work on cars. :P
I agree. O0
Hakasays
Quote* Do they show or describe a principle of operation, or at least some operating parameters of how it functions? Just showing a spinning motor, even if it's real, tells us basically nothing about how it works.
Real or fake, no engineerable details = useless to our work.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." ― Albert Einstein
Quote* Do they use articulate language/equipment/math? Someone using words like impedance and reactance correctly demonstrates depth of knowledge in the field. I'd trust someone making VNA plots over someone using a pair of dollar-store multimeters. :P
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'" -- Richard Feynman
Quote* Do they actually build things? (Armchair engineers) You can't really be a car mechanic unless you actually work on cars.
I agree, however I would never underestimate a good idea...
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.08.28, 05:53:29
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." ― Albert Einstein
Don't get me wrong, I do love the wild crazy conspiracy stories too. "Tom Bearden and the Soviet scalar wave conspiracy" or David Wilcock's adventures visiting Avians through the Stargates on Mars. ;D Their unbridled creativity can often inspire real inventions and innovations.
But I try to not confuse them with the principled scientific/engineering approach that will actually get us to sci-fi world. :P
Hakasays
QuoteDon't get me wrong, I do love the wild crazy conspiracy stories too. "Tom Bearden and the Soviet scalar wave conspiracy" or David Wilcock's adventures visiting Avians through the Stargates on Mars. ;D Their unbridled creativity can often inspire real inventions and innovations.
But I try to not confuse them with the principled scientific/engineering approach that will actually get us to sci-fi world.
That's not what I was referring to as an imagination and I don't think Einstein was either.
We could think of the different roles we play this way...
1)Science: A person discovers that an RF signal in a wire can be transmitted a distance to a receiver. This is a discovery and it's considered science not invention or engineering. To my knowledge we cannot patent a scientific discovery.
2)Invention: Another person reads about the discovery and "imagines" the signals could carry information leading to countless industries like morse code, radio, video, internet. This is the process of invention and not science or engineering. To be clear, the idea came from the inventors mind/imagination as a consequence of past scientific discoveries. As we know from the past a single new idea/invention can destroy entire industries overnight, that's real power.
3)Engineering: Finally after all the discoveries are made and uses invented an engineer takes what was learned and helps design practical applications for the technology. I know this as an Engineer because we never get to have any fun at work. Everything is by the book, 100% proven and triple checked for safety/reliability/liability. Nobody is discovering or inventing anything, that's not our job as Engineers.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.08.29, 00:35:53
1)Science: A person discovers that an RF signal in a wire can be transmitted a distance to a receiver. This is a discovery and it's considered science not invention or engineering. 2)Invention: Another person reads about the discovery and "imagines" the signals could carry information leading to countless industries like morse code, radio, video, internet.
3)Engineering: Finally after all the discoveries are made and uses invented an engineer takes what was learned and helps design practical applications for the technology.
The great electrical engineers of the 19th century seemed to usually have a foot in all three.
QuoteThat's not what I was referring to as an imagination and I don't think Einstein was either.
My mistake. I was referring to imagination as it specifically relates to the fringe sciences.
In the 19th century, electrical engineering was rudimentary because the principles were not or poorly established.
The engineer is normally one who applies known formulas to obtain useful products.
In the field of electromagnetism, the 19th century, especially in the first half, is much more the century of science than of engineering, and the roles were not mixed. Fortunately. A good engineer does not make a good physicist, the way of thinking is not at all the same. If you're an engineer and you're talking to physicists, you'll have to be much more careful in your assertions, or you'll have them confront you with your inconsistencies. It took me a while to be able to talk to scientists without them throwing me off too much.
Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful. He failed in the transmission of energy at a distance because his theoretical ideas against those of Maxwell were wrong.
If from him we have some echoes of extravagant hypotheses, taken up by ignorant people who take him for an omniscient, he did not formalize any of them, undoubtedly he understood the difficulty of improvising as a physicist and of producing a coherent theory.
Tesla's remarkable patents will be remembered, but no theory of physics.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.29, 06:59:14
In the 19th century, electrical engineering was rudimentary because the principles were not or poorly established.
The engineer is normally one who applies known formulas to obtain useful products.
In the field of electromagnetism, the 19th century, especially in the first half, is much more the century of science than of engineering, and the roles were not mixed. Fortunately. A good engineer does not make a good physicist, the way of thinking is not at all the same. If you're an engineer and you're talking to physicists, you'll have to be much more careful in your assertions, or you'll have them confront you with your inconsistencies. It took me a while to be able to talk to scientists without them throwing me off too much.
Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful. He failed in the transmission of energy at a distance because his theoretical ideas against those of Maxwell were wrong.
If from him we have some echoes of extravagant hypotheses, taken up by ignorant people who take him for an omniscient, he did not formalize any of them, undoubtedly he understood the difficulty of improvising as a physicist and of producing a coherent theory.
Tesla's remarkable patents will be remembered, but no theory of physics.
Shame on you F6FLT for such words about Nikola Tesla >:-)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.29, 06:59:14
Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful.
I find these pompous declarations hilarious ;D ;D.
Just because you've failed in your own efforts does not mean Tesla and others have as well. :P
Since this is 'principles of operation' thread, lets get back to that. :P
Potential principle-of-operation: Telluric communication+power system.
* Power transmission through-the-earth performed via series resonance, using the Earth as a dielectric medium rather than a conductive one.
Since displacement currents have different loss properties compared to conduction currents, improved performance results at significant range.
Hakasays,
it is easy to give advice, here my advice for your experiment :)
If you want use longitudinal waves in the media (ground) you need think about it as a transmission line.
You know distance between transmitter and receiver, this is a line length. You can probably guess other properties and you get wave length or frequency to use. This is your "carrier" frequency, use some low modulation frequency to transmit data/voice etc.
Have fun,
Vasik
Quote from: F6FLT
In that I am like everyone else here, no one has succeeded in producing FE or transmitting energy wirelessly around the earth. As Tesla didn't succeed either, that will make us a common point. :)
F6, I somehow doubt you've made any faithful attempts to reproduce Tesla's work, as I haven't been able to find anything online by you or others that ever came close. You probably couldn't even tell me what frequencies Tesla was operating at in Colorado Springs without looking it up, let alone the number of coils, geometry and overall configuration C.C
I suggest re-reading the Colorado Springs notes a few times before making pompous claims, as Tesla lays out some of his early success in plain black-and-white (attached).
(Edit: adding link: https://oiipdf.com/download/nikola-tesla-colorado-springs-notes-1899-1900-pdf)
I have operating principles and mathematics and guidance from successful replicators to work with, but I freely admit that there's a good chance for failure, especially as I learn the critical operating parameters required for high-quality operation. Just as the dozens of failed predecessors to the Wright Bros before flight did.
If you don't approach this stuff with an open mind, you won't be motivated to perform faithful experiments.
And if you don't perform experiments, you have zero chance of success. ;)
Regarding Tesla's attempts to transmit energy, he gave an interview wit his attorneys when he was in his 70's. This interview is in a book, I can't recall the title. In this interview he states that the magnifying transmitter was the technology of the time, and that it is not the way he would do it now. He doesn't explain what he means by that.
Also, in this interview, he dispels the popular myth that Morgan had pulled funding for his tower because he wanted to give the world "free energy". Tesla states that Morgan fulfilled his obligations to the letter (the agreement they had). Tesla explains that success of his tower was complicated by natural elements (I cannot recall his words, just the impression).
Quote from: F6FLT
The extra-coil has a capacitance with respect to the ground, so we have a tuned circuit looped by the displacement currents to the ground, and there is no surprise to see a strong current flowing at the resonance.
* Do you know the dielectric loss tangent of water/soil at 50-100kc?
* Do you know why it is critical to minimize ground impedance in a telluric system?
* How might a ground with 2 ohms DC resistance perform worse than a ground with 50 ohms DC resistance?
* What is the approximate velocity of dielectric induction, according to Nikola Tesla, Eric Dollard, and Charles Wheatstone?
* Do you understand why I ask these questions? :P
Quote from: F6FLT
Maxwell explains this easily, you should read him too.
Maxwell did a good job mathematically modeling displacement current, but he doesn't cover the fundamental process or propagation properties involved. The term was introduced largely to maintain continuity; to balance the equations.
You should read Steinmetz and Heaviside and Dollard as they dig much deeper into propagation properties in complex transmission lines. Things like skin effect and transients and dynamic impedance variation.
Quote from: F6FLT
The Colorado Springs Note is a good observation of an effect, but a false theoretical interpretation. That's why the transmission of energy is limited to small distances, where the displacement currents loop. Beyond that it doesn't work anymore, unless the dimensions of the circuit were scaled to the distance to be covered.
The efficiency of a telluric transmission using dielectric/longitudinal induction is limited predominantly by the series impedance of the equivalent circuit, the dielectric loss tangent of the medium, and the contact area of of the capacitor.
A few ground rods fed with a round wire connecting to the transmitter can easily present a system impedance of 50 ohms or greater, even in the 160m band. You may as well be transmitting into a resistor at that point. :P
Quote from: F6FLT
why we must focus on a possible longitudinal wave, even if it is erroneously claimed to be at work in Tesla when Maxwell is enough.
There are recent studies and publications on the subject, see Grumpy's thread "Scalar Longitudinal Waves (SLW)". Several scientists even seem to be converging on the same set of equations beyond Maxwell, to incorporate the longitudinal wave. The experimental demonstration remains to be done, see Bruce Lee.
Eric Dollard demonstrated in the 80's that LMD waves can be modeled using standard EE formulas and an 'upturned' transmission line network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNFpJVpm9Cs
One does not need to rewrite electrical engineering or employ pages of complex equations in order to model longitudinal waves; any circuit simulator will already do it. ;)
Do longitudinal waves lead to overunity?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.08.30, 15:01:16
Do longitudinal waves lead to overunity?
In my opinion, not by themselves, and not in any system that is electrically symmetric. Longitudinal waves are simply a novel means of transferring power over distance.
My personal opinion is that parametric variation (of inductance, capacitance, or combined impedance) is
the necessary condition for production/destruction of energy.
Consider though that a charged capacitor whose capacitance is quickly decreased creates a longitudinal/displacement wave as a side-product (directly analogous to earthquake displacement causing a tsunami in the ocean).
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.08.30, 14:25:04
...If you don't even know half the people...
Do you know the...
Do you know why...
...
Do you understand why I ask...
argumentum ad ignorantiam. Sophism.
Quote
...
A few ground rods fed with a round wire connecting to the transmitter can easily present a system impedance of 50 ohms or greater, even in the 160m band.
...
You should read Steinmetz and Heaviside and Dollard as they dig much deeper into propagation properties in complex transmission lines. T
...
Eric Dollard demonstrated in the 80's that LMD waves can be modeled using standard EE formulas and an 'upturned' transmission line networ
The transmission lines are precisely made to replace the remote energy transmissions that we do not know how to do otherwise than by radio and generally with little efficiency.
The transmission lines are the engineering of the medium, not the engineering of the transmitter nor of the receiver nor of the coupling of both with the medium, which is, I thought, the interest of your experiment. If you consider the earth as a transmission line and the science is already known with Heaviside or Dollard, you must already know the result of your UK/US link.
If I have to read Dollard about that, where can I find his texts? Videos are totally insufficient.
https://ericpdollard.com/
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.30, 17:00:12
argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Your
response is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Each question was presented for a specific reason related to telluric+longitudinal research.
**** Do you know the dielectric loss tangent of water/soil at 50-100kc?Reason 1: Dielectric (displacement current) losses go down with frequency, and are potentially negligible in the LF spectrum for these materials.
Reason 2: Nikola Tesla was operating in the 50-80kc range in Colorado Springs.
**** Do you know why it is critical to minimize ground impedance in a telluric system?Answer: Because efficiency of an LC circuit depends on it. Any stray impedance in a telluric system will appear as an equivalent series resistance.
**** How might a ground with 2 ohms DC resistance perform worse than a ground with 50 ohms DC resistance?Answer: If the contact area of the 50 ohms ground was greater than the 2 ohm ground, it would present as a lower impedance, despite having significantly higher DC resistance.
(note: I just encountered this yesterday! ;D)
**** What is the approximate velocity of dielectric induction, according to Nikola Tesla, Eric Dollard, and Charles Wheatstone?Answer: PI/2 times the velocity of light.
***** Do you understand why I ask these questions?Answer: Because the questions are directly related to my work and I wanted to probe your depth of knowledge. Your avoidance infered a lack of knowledge on the subject.
Quote from: F6FLT
The transmission lines are precisely made to replace the remote energy transmissions that we do not know how to do otherwise than by radio and generally with little efficiency.
It depends whether you're talking about a transverse or longitudinal transmission line, and whether you're talking about continuous waves or transient impulses.
Both will have different properties and loss conditions vs distance (as you can model yourself with the analog network in the previous post).
Quote from: F6FLT
The transmission lines are the engineering of the medium, not the engineering of the transmitter nor of the receiver nor of the coupling of both with the medium, which is, I thought, the interest of your experiment. If you consider the earth as a transmission line and the science is already known with Heaviside or Dollard, you must already know the result of your UK/US link.
As with the pre-Wright-bros flight experiments, there are still some technical and engineering questions remaining to be tackled. ;)
* The technical question is one of loss tangents and bulk transmission medium characteristics for longitudinal waves. We know Tesla operated in the 50-100kc region, but that may not be explicitly required for simple communications. There is very little published research regarding bulk dielectric/magnetic properties and loss tangents at such low frequencies.
* The engineering problem is one of ground impedance. Ideal impedance is 1 ohm or less, which requires
substantial engineering in order achieve (like burying multiple 10,000 gallon steel tanks underground).
We hope that our modest home-based arrangements will be enough to overcome the impedance and dielectric losses, but in every case we are working to improve this.
The 160m amateur radio band was chosen for a combination of cost and legality. We hope the loss tangents and bulk properties are still favorable enough at the 1.8-2mc region to allow reasonable propagation in the 1-2kw region. It also means we only have to wind 100-200ft coils rather than 3500ft+ coils. :P
Quote from: F6FLT
If I have to read Dollard about that, where can I find his texts? Videos are totally insufficient.
I think you'd like the video because it's an actual live experiment with both configurations demonstrating the different properties of both networks. It's a very straightforward and scientific approach: O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNFpJVpm9Cs
But if you do want to deep-dive, there are plenty of papers from the 80's that attempt to describe+model the different transmission networks. Be aware that Eric is a 19th century Electrical Engineer so his work is built largely around the materials and perspective of Steinmetz, Heaviside, and Maxwell:
'Theory of Wireless Power'
https://ericpdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/theory_of_wireless_power_eric_dollard.pdf
'Build your own Alexanderson Antenna':
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Build%20your%20own%20Alexanderson%20Antenna%20by%20Eric%20Dollard.pdf
I think there is also a chapter in Lone Pine Writings that is quite a bit simpler both conceptually and mathematically; I will post the relevant pages when I find it.
Also more bulk written material here: http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/
(Don't worry if it doesn't make sense right away, I studied for about 2yrs before the concepts started to click)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.30, 18:40:32
What are the supporting facts?
What such links have already been made, by whom, and between which points on earth far enough away not to assume a simple EM wave?
If you don't understand the principles being discussed, it's best not to speak as an authority on them. :-X
F6FLT, you openly declared that Tesla had failed without knowing
any details about his experimental setup or understanding of the principles being used.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to the extreme.
You've already demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject by avoiding my relevant questions. Don't dig the knife deeper.
I would suggest anyone interested in this stuff start by building a simple transverse and longitudinal network and compare the properties and effective propagation velocities of both.
(ideally in real life with real components but a sim will usually work too)
Measure the frequency of both modes with the same upturned components and note the ratio and effective velocity difference between the two modes.
F6, if you're serious about this, find the frequency ratio between a transverse and longitudinal network and I will continue our discussion. I prefer to not waste too much time with trolls.
Everything is a test if you haven't attended the lessons.
'There are no foolish questions, and no man becomes a fool until he has stopped asking questions.' -- Charles Proteus Steinmetz
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6DsqNeO2wrxD/
I comment why it's important to have operating principles to guide our experiments+replications; to break down 'exotic' systems and try and understand them from their simplest concepts+components.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.06, 08:36:05
It is however simple to verify it: it is enough to couple a Tesla coil to a radio receiver, and one realizes that one receives rather well the radio emissions around the resonance frequency.[/b] Could it be that radio was already made in longitudinal waves, and nobody knew about it? ;D
F6, I can tell you
still haven't gone over any of Adrian's material as he covers this quite clearly in all of the ranged experiments. C.C C.C
https://www.am-innovations.com/telluric-transference-of-electric-power-mf-band-2-8-miles/
Quote5. Comparison of radio-wave and telluric-wave measurement by re-tuning the RX coil from the Telluric ground plate connection, to an ungrounded single wire bottom-end extension.
https://www.am-innovations.com/telluric-transference-of-electric-power-brookmans-park-am-radio-transmitter/
Quote4. A modular Tesla coil transformer receiver (RX) designed to tune both the parallel and series resonant modes to 909kc and 1089kc, corresponding with two of the station's transmitting frequencies, and optimized for the longitudinal magneto-dielectric (LMD) transmission mode.
6. At 300m from the transmitting station antenna, in the near-field and within the induction field of the TX, a maximum of ~55mW of power could be measured using an HP435B with HP8481H thermocouple sensor, and with RX tuned to the parallel mode at 909kc, and using a tested good ground connection.
7. The telluric wave was measured to contribute ~39mW to the total received power, and the radio wave ~16mW of power, showing that more power was received directly through the telluric channel between TX and RX.
F6FLT
QuoteWhen one does not understand conventional science, how can one tell the difference between a new effect or an anomaly with respect to the laws of physics, and normal behavior?
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."― Albert Einstein
In my travels I found most inventors don't care so much about science or the difference between a new effect or an anomaly. The inventors mind works differently than everyone else and it tends to revolve around imagery, problem solving and finding solutions that work.
QuoteIt is however simple to verify it: it is enough to couple a Tesla coil to a radio receiver, and one realizes that one receives rather well the radio emissions around the resonance frequency. Could it be that radio was already made in longitudinal waves, and nobody knew about it?.
Unfortunately, this simple experiment is not seen by E Dollard and other believers, they prefer to indulge in the mythology that they have created around Tesla.
It's debatable, some of my radiant/longitudinal wave experiments induced circuits inside a Faraday cage which science claims must exclude all EM/RF for know reasons. Logically it must be an anomaly or science doesn't fully understand how Faraday cages work. However the most likely answer is Faraday cages do work and the disturbance in question is different than standard EM/RF. I don't think it's that big of a deal and as we know new discoveries are being made every minute of every day.
Regards
AC
A Faraday cage only protects against static electricity, i.e. the electric charges arrange themselves in such a way as to cancel the field.
In dynamics, the operation is not at all the same because no configuration of static charges can mask an induced current.
In dynamics, a "Faraday cage" is simply a shield dissipating induced currents, and if it is not thick enough, it leaks.
It is extremely easy for me to receive AM radio when the receiver is enclosed in a metal sugar box! This doesn't call into question electromagnetism. It only calls into question the competence of those who misunderstand and take physicists for idiots who would not have noticed it.
"It is enough to couple a Tesla coil to a radio receiver, and one realizes that one receives rather well the radio emissions around the resonance frequency" : it is not "debatable", it is an experiment, it is enough to check the facts. Too complicated, guys?! I also have to tell you how to do it?
Willingness to perform+follow experiments represents a willingness to be proven wrong.
F6FLT
QuoteA Faraday cage only protects against static electricity, i.e. the electric charges arrange themselves in such a way as to cancel the field.
In dynamics, the operation is not at all the same because no configuration of static charges can mask an induced current.
In dynamics, a "Faraday cage" is simply a shield dissipating induced currents, and if it is not thick enough, it leaks.
It is extremely easy for me to receive AM radio when the receiver is enclosed in a metal sugar box! This doesn't call into question electromagnetism. It only calls into question the competence of those who misunderstand and take physicists for idiots who would not have noticed it.
It seems contradictory because many claim charge will distribute itself evenly over the surface of a conductor or there cannot be an electric field inside it then some claim a Faraday cage isn't perfect contradicting there last claim... so which is it?. It seems to me you and many other critics are just cherry picking facts to support your own narrative.
Quote"It is enough to couple a Tesla coil to a radio receiver, and one realizes that one receives rather well the radio emissions around the resonance frequency" : it is not "debatable", it is an experiment, it is enough to check the facts. Too complicated, guys?! I also have to tell you how to do it?
In my opinion you don't understand scientific experiments very well. Any credible experiment should exclude any artifacts or effects not related to the thing were trying to study which is radiant/longitudinal waves. Your experiment proves nothing because any kind of disturbance including RF could be received and we would never know the difference between them.
It's also disingenuous because you have set up the experiment in know ways to get the result you want. It's what Feynman called "cargo cult science" where the result was already decided before the experiment was even performed. "There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science (junk science) ... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty."--Richard Feynman.
You see in my experiments I used Faraday cage shielding, plastic/dielectric insulation and distance (inverse square law) to rule out RF. Not to prove myself right, only to prove something was happening I did not fully understand. As many of the greatest minds implied, we cannot learn anything new without being wrong about something...
Regards
AC
AllCanadian seems to contribute more in terms of ideas and experiments. ;)
F6FLT
QuoteIn my opinion, you don't understand the basics of physics, to put it mildly, and I have given facts that confirm this.
That is your opinion, I prefer to think I have been down that path and at the end of it I was left wanting. As Hakasays implied, there are too many unknowns and contradictions few want to address.
My theory based on my own experimental observations was that if the magnitude of change of a disturbance is much greater than the ability of a medium/material to conduct it a slightly different form of "conduction" can occur. This based on Nikola Tesla's lectures, experiments and observations.
We could think of it this way, if we could force a massive number of charge carriers into a surface in nanoseconds faster than it could possibly conduct them away a material expansion/ejection could occur. Now we have extra motion not normally considered as the charge carrier/material is no longer static but dynamic, ie motional. You see as an inventor I can easily imagine a "conductor" moving in multiple dimensions.
It's textbook physics isn't it?, the rate at which a charge carrying "conductor" moves determines the magnitude of the inductive effect on other nearby conductors. However now we have a little snag because the supposed surface which was supposedly conducting is now expanding radially outward at a rate faster than the rate of linear conduction were familiar with. Wait... what?, the surface could become variable?. Well, of course it can because in reality the field is always a function of the aggregate of charge carriers and not the objects we think were seeing, it's an illusion. Remember, all material including conductors is only 1% matter and 99% EM fields. In reality it's not material in the sense we imagine it to be it's fluid, apply enough energy to a material and it becomes fluid.
In any case it's cool, whatever starts your tractor and at this point I'm just happy to wake up each morning. I'm thankful your here to offer another perspective and right or wrong it adds to the debate.
Regards
AC
You are referring to radiant electricity, the elusive discovery of Nikola Tesla.
He published a lecture in 1892, on the "Dissipation of Electricity", but I've not been able to find this lecture.
Tesla supposedly discovered a new method of induction, a new electrical force, etc.
Peter Lindemann wrote a nice book about he subject, it's discovery, and applications.
I believe there has to be some correctness to all of the stories, even if most are exaggerations and falsehoods.
Did Bedini use radiant electricity, I have my doubts.
Dr. Moray probably did use it.
If you can duplicate this radiant electric effect, then please share it with everyone else so that they can also experiment with it.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.07, 22:32:39
You are referring to radiant electricity, the elusive discovery of Nikola Tesla.
He published a lecture in 1892, on the "Dissipation of Electricity", but I've not been able to find this lecture.
Tesla supposedly discovered a new method of induction, a new electrical force, etc.
Peter Lindemann wrote a nice book about he subject, it's discovery, and applications.
I believe there has to be some correctness to all of the stories, even if most are exaggerations and falsehoods.
Did Bedini use radiant electricity, I have my doubts.
Dr. Moray probably did use it.
If you can duplicate this radiant electric effect, then please share it with everyone else so that they can also experiment with it.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4227.msg98874#msg98874
PS https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/dissipation-electrical-energy-hertz-resonator
:)
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.07, 21:45:43
My theory based on my own experimental observations was that if the magnitude of change of a disturbance is much greater than the ability of a medium/material to conduct it a slightly different form of "conduction" can occur. This based on Nikola Tesla's lectures, experiments and observations.
We could think of it this way, if we could force a massive number of charge carriers into a surface in nanoseconds faster than it could possibly conduct them away a material expansion/ejection could occur. Now we have extra motion not normally considered as the charge carrier/material is no longer static but dynamic, ie motional. You see as an inventor I can easily imagine a "conductor" moving in multiple dimensions.
It's textbook physics isn't it?, the rate at which a charge carrying "conductor" moves determines the magnitude of the inductive effect on other nearby conductors. However now we have a little snag because the supposed surface which was supposedly conducting is now expanding radially outward at a rate faster than the rate of linear conduction were familiar with. Wait... what?, the surface could become variable?. Well, of course it can because in reality the field is always a function of the aggregate of charge carriers and not the objects we think were seeing, it's an illusion. Remember, all material including conductors is only 1% matter and 99% EM fields. In reality it's not material in the sense we imagine it to be it's fluid, apply enough energy to a material and it becomes fluid.
In any case it's cool, whatever starts your tractor and at this point I'm just happy to wake up each morning. I'm thankful your here to offer another perspective and right or wrong it adds to the debate.
Regards
AC
AC, in your radiant cap-discharge setups,
do you suspect there is a 'critical mass' in terms of voltage or capacity for the effect to clearly manifest?
30/50/80kv, x number of joules, etc?
I was also wondering if you've tried lower-voltage caps triggered by 'plasma-ignition' style circuit (HV spark to trigger a LV cap discharge).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.08, 13:31:12
Nothing there invalidates the radio effect of a Tesla coil.
Every coil will posses a transverse and longitudinal component. I dare you to find an S11 VNA chart that doesn't. The goal in tellurics is minimizing the radiated(herzian) component and maximizing the longitudinal component. This has been covered many times already, both in transmission line analysis as well as from Tesla himself:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en
QuoteSecond. It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space in the form of hertzian or electromagnetic waves is very small. To give an idea, I would say that the frequency should be smaller than twenty thousand per second, though shorter waves might be practicable. The lowest frequency would appear to be six per second, in which case there will be but one node, at or near the ground-mate. and, paradoxical as it may seem, the effect will increase with the distance and will be greatest in a region diametrically opposite the transmitter. With oscillations still slower the earth, strictly speaking, will not resonate, but simply act as a capacity, and the variation of potential will be more or less uniform over its entire surface.
Every inductor has capacitance and every capacitor has inductance. This is why I like to use transmission line models, to accurately predict+quantify the properties of both modes.
I even provided the simulation model so you can compare for yourself: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4344.msg100514#msg100514
I await your results.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.08, 14:41:36
Every coil will posses a transverse and longitudinal component.
...
Every inductor has capacitance and every capacitor has inductance.
...
Digression.
No relation with the radio emission of a Tesla coil, which some experimenters brandish as a proof of connection by the longitudinal wave.
Naudin already experimented with your scheme in 1998, and he found a COP of 4: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm :)
So I don't see what you are looking for, the FE has been available for 25 years! Or maybe the energy by the longitudinal wave is less energetic than the other one, they are not the same joules... any theory on that? :)
As for the Tesla patent, it works in the near field. Coupled LC circuits are used for decades in electronics, especially RF, it is conventional electromagnetism.
Is this free energy research?! To be satisfied with what does not work, and to say that what works, but without FE, is according to extravagant principles? This is going in circles.
F6, have you had a chance to tinker with the transverse + longitudinal network analogues in the simulator yet to compare the different properties between them? I was hoping that would better explain the potential principle-of-operation of a telluric system.
I've never claimed that longitudinal waves are 'over-unity', only that they have different transmission properties and loss characteristics (as can be seenn+modeled inside a circuit simulator or on the bench).
@Hak
A principle is made to explain observations and measurements. You speak of a principle, but the principle of what, we don't know, since no facts demonstrate a longitudinal wave.
In what unit is the amplitude of a longitudinal wave measured? You talk about a longitudinal wave around a Tesla coil, without even saying how its amplitude is measured, nor how you differentiate it from a classical EM wave, nor why Naudin sees in it overunity and not others, even though the setup is the same.
And you never answer when you are asked these kinds of factual questions, you just send back irrelevant links, as if you did not understand the principle yourself and were not able to express it in your own words.
When you tell us about your own tests, when you put your measurement results, the details of how you proceed, the method to distinguish longitudinality from transversality, and express them with your own words and scientific rigor, you will acquire a beginning of credibility.
This will be much more useful than your more or less insulting images, imho the result of a psychological projection, whose repetitive puerility is becoming a bit painful.
Quote from: Hakasays
F6, have you had a chance to tinker with the transverse + longitudinal network analogues in the simulator yet to compare the different properties between them?
A simple 'no' would suffice. C.C :P
I've already spent days sharing experiments, analogies, and simulations with you (which I still doubt you've even clicked on). Based on the brick-wall response thus-far, I suspect I'm not going to get any useful insights from you to warrant further discussion here. So I'll simply leave you to your work as I return to mine. ;)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.09, 08:43:39
In what unit is the amplitude of a longitudinal wave measured? You talk about a longitudinal wave around a Tesla coil, without even saying how its amplitude is measured, nor how you differentiate it from a classical EM wave, nor why Naudin sees in it overunity and not others, even though the setup is the same.
Has anyone, other than Naudin, experienced these results?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.09, 14:16:45
Has anyone, other than Naudin, experienced these results?
After 25 years, it would be known.
The problem with Naudin, who as an experimenter did an excellent job and documented it much more seriously than anyone else in the free energy movement, is that when he noticed a mistake, he did not redo his WEB pages or put an erratum.
He is also the only one who found a COP>1 in the MEG and in a version of his Kapagen, while in the following versions there is no more overunity, and Naudin will never give an explanation.
F6, I'd rather not waste another few hours answering with links+citations that you'll never read. You still haven't answered any of my questions, so IMO my time today is better spent using VNA to reverse-engineer the bulk properties of telluric transmission media.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.09, 16:56:38
Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.09, 17:11:22
After 25 years, it would be known.
The problem with Naudin, who as an experimenter did an excellent job and documented it much more seriously than anyone else in the free energy movement, is that when he noticed a mistake, he did not redo his WEB pages or put an erratum.
He is also the only one who found a COP>1 in the MEG and in a version of his Kapagen, while in the following versions there is no more overunity, and Naudin will never give an explanation.
Not quite true actually! I found OU in my version of the MEG which used MOV's as the load. The secondaries were high voltage and the power in and power out were measured on a 3-phase Voltech PM3000 which is quite capable of taking measurements on highly non-linear and reactive loads. There may still be mention of my work on JLN's website under Jon F.
I would provide the data but unfortunately that was lost many computer crashes ago. IIRC, the COP was typically ~1.7 and increased with the addition of the PM assembly placed in the center of the Metglas core.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.09, 16:56:38
No analysis on your part expressed here, just irrelevant references to the questions. I don't call that "sharing".
;)
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.09, 17:19:59
...You still haven't answered any of my questions...
Answering a question with a question is like reversing the burden of proof. I am not fooled by this rhetorical method.
I am not the one who proposes the subject. So it is up to you to answer the questions, however simple.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.09, 19:16:11
Answering a question with a question is like reversing the burden of proof. I am not fooled by this rhetorical method.
I am not the one who proposes the subject. So it is up to you to answer the questions, however simple.
My question precedes yours. The question is, are you actually exploring the subject and materials or just wasting my time?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.09, 17:11:22
After 25 years, it would be known.
The problem with Naudin, who as an experimenter did an excellent job and documented it much more seriously than anyone else in the free energy movement, is that when he noticed a mistake, he did not redo his WEB pages or put an erratum.
He is also the only one who found a COP>1 in the MEG and in a version of his Kapagen, while in the following versions there is no more overunity, and Naudin will never give an explanation.
What was Naudin's mistake?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.09, 19:45:52
What was Naudin's mistake?
Only he can tell.
Who would be stupid enough to miss a selfrunner from an effect with a COP of 4?
Certainly not Naudin. So he knows where he went wrong.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.09, 19:16:01
I have never yet seen a free energy experimenter able to provide the uncertainty margin on his overunity measurement, nor to have his setup duplicated, nor to be infallible.
In OU, the only acceptable proof is a reproducible selfrunner setup.
Do you have one? If so provide an engineering diagram, your measurement protocol and your measurements, and if it's convincing, there are some competent experimenters here who will reproduce it. That's what we're here for, not to listen to the fairy tales of those who thought they were seeing OU somewhere but still have their power grid subscription.
Well I can say this, I tried to realize a self-runner from the device but soon realized that I could not convert the extra energy seen in the Mov loads back to the power supply. So, the exercise was one in frustration and I also then realized that one could experience OU but not accomplish feedback to self-run.
If you or anyone else might have any suggestions, I would love to hear them and if reasonably logical, I would be willing to rebuild the device and give it a try!
Regards,
Pm
Any details on why you couldn't feed back to output?
Was the output somehow incompatible?
Quote from: partzman on 2022.09.09, 21:23:22
Well I can say this, I tried to realize a self-runner from the device but soon realized that I could not convert the extra energy seen in the Mov loads back to the power supply. So, the exercise was one in frustration and I also then realized that one could experience OU but not accomplish feedback to self-run.
If you or anyone else might have any suggestions, I would love to hear them and if reasonably logical, I would be willing to rebuild the device and give it a try!
Regards,
Pm
To an extent it makes sense. Just because you have a COP 5.0 heat pump doesn't mean you can use the output to directly drive a Tesla Turbine.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.10, 00:30:16
Any details on why you couldn't feed back to output?
Was the output somehow incompatible?
The Mov is a non-linear resistance and capacitance. Standing alone as a load it exhibited more output energy than input energy from the PS. So in my thinking since the output voltage was greater than the input power supply, I tried two different connections that is, load in series with the PS and in parallel with the PS. Both failed to supply the excess energy in the Mov to the supply, it's that simple.
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2022.09.10, 14:24:09
The Mov is a non-linear resistance and capacitance. Standing alone as a load it exhibited more output energy than input energy from the PS. So in my thinking since the output voltage was greater than the input power supply, I tried two different connections that is, load in series with the PS and in parallel with the PS. Both failed to supply the excess energy in the Mov to the supply, it's that simple.
Pm
Did connecting the output to the PS change the non-linear resistance and capacitance values?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.10, 08:23:04
We have to admit it. It happened to me. And this is one more reason why a selfrunner device must be required for an OU demonstration.
Sir
It would be nice to read some details of your experience?
I often wondered what you find intriguing enuff to ?
Respectfully
Chet
Any OU self runner has to feed from within itself IMO, and not directly from the output to the input which would change the dynamics of the unit in the first place.
Regards
Mike
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.10, 14:36:51
Did connecting the output to the PS change the non-linear resistance and capacitance values?
IIRC, the series connection basically left the Mov characteristics the same due to the fact that the power supply voltage was 30-35v dc and the output voltages reached ~800-900 peak. So, I was feeding the output current thru the Mov back to the supply.
In the parallel mode, I don't really remember how I scaled the output down to the lower supply voltage but I probably rectified the output and then used a 'lytic capacitor divider scheme for the level difference.
Neither one of these schemes utilized what was measured as excess energy in the Mov's.
Pm
Hakasays
QuoteAC, in your radiant cap-discharge setups,
do you suspect there is a 'critical mass' in terms of voltage or capacity for the effect to clearly manifest?
30/50/80kv, x number of joules, etc?
For sure and the minimum I used was around 100kV. Initially I was using my 500kV Van De Graaff, 20 plate (6"x12") parallel plate capacitor and quenched SG. Later I found a properly rectified Oudin, Ruhmkorff or Tesla coil setup can also work. It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.
QuoteI was also wondering if you've tried lower-voltage caps triggered by 'plasma-ignition' style circuit (HV spark to trigger a LV cap discharge).
I was experimenting with that circuit around 10+ years ago when it was called the water spark plug circuit. It's a great circuit for lean burn and/or water injection engines. I found it will not produce a true radiant event because the discharge is at the zero point of the circuit. That is, all the negative charge is negating/cancelling itself when it meets the equal and opposite positive charge across the gap. This qualifies as a focal point for the dissipation of energy which is not what we want. Our focal point must be the load surface and the space surrounding our emitter.
I developed my own theory and form of notation based solely on energy/transformations and unfortunately it would take forever to explain. The main consideration is the zero point/plane where two opposite conditions/charges meet forcing the dissipation of energy as a transformation. For example, we short a battery with a resistance and wherever the opposite charges meet, the resistance, the majority of energy is dissipated. Thus by observing and understanding how and where energy generates/dissipates within any given system we can modify and focus said generation/dissipation.
It begs the question, how many people focus only on energy/transformations?. Not a given field of science, not math or equations, not any given phenomena but only on energy/transformations?. As Viktor Schauberger implied, if everyone is doing the same thing and it's not working out as expected we should consider doing the opposite...
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.10, 19:26:11
It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.
There it is.
QuoteFor sure and the minimum I used was around 100kV. Initially I was using my 500kV Van De Graaff, 20 plate (6"x12") parallel plate capacitor and quenched SG. Later I found a properly rectified Oudin, Ruhmkorff or Tesla coil setup can also work. It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.
***Disclaimer***
I should note HV is very dangerous more so when is has any amount of capacitance to store energy. A 100+kV impulse from a large capacitor is deadly in most cases and extreme care must be taken. As well, these systems are literally designed to unload all it's energy in the smallest time period which is even more problematic.
I use a no hands approach which includes non conductive tools on the end of 24" insulated rods. At the end of any experiment I use a dedicated ground terminal on my bench, attached to a 8' Earth ground rod outside through a #6 conductor, to discharge all components. I also like to sweep the components/area with an NE2 neon probe in case some nearby objects became charged in the process.
It's cool, we just have to follow certain procedures and treat everything as if it's deadly until we have proven otherwise.
Regards
AC
try 2kv first...into a Brooks-shape coil of 1200 feet of magnet wire
You'll need a radiant energy detector of some sort.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.10, 19:26:11
Hakasays
For sure and the minimum I used was around 100kV. Initially I was using my 500kV Van De Graaff, 20 plate (6"x12") parallel plate capacitor and quenched SG. Later I found a properly rectified Oudin, Ruhmkorff or Tesla coil setup can also work. It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.
I was experimenting with that circuit around 10+ years ago when it was called the water spark plug circuit. It's a great circuit for lean burn and/or water injection engines. I found it will not produce a true radiant event because the discharge is at the zero point of the circuit. That is, all the negative charge is negating/cancelling itself when it meets the equal and opposite positive charge across the gap. This qualifies as a focal point for the dissipation of energy which is not what we want. Our focal point must be the load surface and the space surrounding our emitter.
I developed my own theory and form of notation based solely on energy/transformations and unfortunately it would take forever to explain. The main consideration is the zero point/plane where two opposite conditions/charges meet forcing the dissipation of energy as a transformation. For example, we short a battery with a resistance and wherever the opposite charges meet, the resistance, the majority of energy is dissipated. Thus by observing and understanding how and where energy generates/dissipates within any given system we can modify and focus said generation/dissipation.
It begs the question, how many people focus only on energy/transformations?. Not a given field of science, not math or equations, not any given phenomena but only on energy/transformations?. As Viktor Schauberger implied, if everyone is doing the same thing and it's not working out as expected we should consider doing the opposite...
Regards
AC
Thanks a lot AC, I was expecting much more 'tame' numbers (10-50kv) :o
It would fill in one piece of the puzzle as to why some elements of Tesla's work had inexplicable HV rectification built-in.
Try something simple like the hairpin circuit with unidirectional pulses.
Hakasays
QuoteThanks a lot AC, I was expecting much more 'tame' numbers (10-50kv) :o
It would fill in one piece of the puzzle as to why some elements of Tesla's work had inexplicable HV rectification built-in.
I found very high voltages were required for radiant matter discharges however many FE inventors like E.V.Gray, Moray, Hubbard etc.. supposedly used 5 to 10kV for radiant energy devices.
In the picture you posted, I believe Tesla claimed the part labelled C1-C2 was an extra spark gap used to lower the transmission frequency. I remember Tesla saying he wanted to avoid higher frequencies because it tended to radiate energy from the top load. As Tesla explained, the upper spark gap introduced a time delay near the zero crossing when the polarity alternated. So the (+) peak polarity discharges, time delay, (-) peak polarity discharges, time delay, (+) peak polarity discharges, time delay and so on.
In this way we could utilize all the benefits of very sharp high voltage impulses(high rate of change, small time period) without all the drawbacks of high frequency and radiation losses. As I said prior, most of the effects of high frequency have little to do with the actual "frequency". It relates more to the fact high frequency alternations generally have a higher rate of change/small time period just like a high voltage DC impulse. This is why Tesla ultimately abandoned AC and started using DC impulses in my opinion.
I thought the concept was absolutely brilliant and shows the level of understanding Tesla had at the time. Even today most of the ultra high voltage transmission lines will be DC not AC to avoid radiation/transmission losses.
Regards
AC
"Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing." - Rupert Sheldrake
;D ;D
Borderline troll-post removed.
You never did answer my question, F6. https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4321.msg100617#msg100617
Are you actually exploring the subject and materials, or just wasting time here?
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.12, 14:19:47
...
Are you actually exploring the subject and materials, or just wasting time here?
I return your remark. Your reference to Sheldrake shows a propensity to waste time.
As for the questions, I am waiting for yours, on how to distinguish radio waves from longitudinal waves in a US/UK link, or on the balance of the longitudinal waves between US and UK...
There is no point in doing experiments if you don't know what you are checking.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.12, 14:26:38
I return your remark. Your reference to Sheldrake shows a propensity to waste time.
As for the questions, I am waiting for yours, on how to distinguish radio waves from longitudinal waves, or on the balance of the longitudinal waves between US and UK...
There is no point in doing experiments if you don't know what you are checking.
My question precedes yours, because if you're not going to explore the experiments, simulations, and principles-of-operation yourself then there's no point discussing things with you. I may as well be talking to a flat earther.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.12, 13:11:12
"Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing." - Rupert Sheldrake
;D ;D
Rupert Sheldrak is a biologist, obviously he speaks outside his field of competence, and moreover he is a "researcher" in parapsychology, in other words a crank who does not feel subjected to any plausibility or experimental verification.
He has not understood anything about the big bang, and that science does not pretend to explain what happened at t=0 nor before, supposing moreover that t=0 existed.
The big bang is however quite simple to understand: it is enough to replay the expansion of the universe in reverse, and one sees the convergence. It is simple common sense and therefore beyond the reach of fools.
The denigration of science by idiots who have never advanced human knowledge nor provided anything useful to humanity is ridiculous and pathetic. The right place for Sheldrak's thoughts is the trash can.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.12, 14:34:49
Rupert Sheldrak is a biologist, obviously he speaks outside his field of competence, and moreover he is a "researcher" in parapsychology, in other words a crank who does not feel subjected to any plausibility or experimental verification.
Obviously you haven't studied the subject and experimental evidence.
Very similar to FE subjects. You just assume that you know everything and all other people are idiots.
Don't be surprised that nobody want to talk to you.
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2022.09.12, 14:41:57
Obviously you haven't studied the subject and experimental evidence.
Very similar to FE subjects. You just assume that you know everything and all other people are idiots.
Don't be surprised that nobody want to talk to you.
This whole tirade started when F6 ignorantly declared Tesla's telluric work to be a failure without even knowing the frequency range or circuit arrangements or any details whatsoever, or any experimental attempts to replicate since then. I was triggered by the pretentiousness to respond as I've spent years studying the work.
But what's worse is I spent days hand-feeding him all the useful citations and experiments that he never bothered to even click on.
That's why he's no longer welcome in my threads (he's always welcome to start his own).
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.12, 14:59:24
This whole tirade started when F6 ignorantly declared Tesla's telluric work to be a failure
...
I confirm, a failure.
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
Euclide
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2022.09.12, 14:41:57
Obviously you haven't studied the subject and experimental evidence.
Very similar to FE subjects. You just assume that you know everything and all other people are idiots.
Don't be surprised that nobody want to talk to you.
Sheldrake would have a parapsychology experiment that works? Explain it to the group, I'm sure it will be of interest to some people, it will surely be more interesting than his nonsense quoted by Hak.
Not everyone else is an idiot, only some, and not to distinguish between them is to remain as stupid as they are. Sheldrake is one of the idiots, but more annoyingly, a harmful idiot:
"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a
lack of evidence for morphic resonance and
inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that
popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science."
Wikipedia
I have no problem finding people to talk to, but very few of them are scientifically coherent. Contrary to the experts in FE who congratulate each other and comfort each other in their illusions, I don't need to flatter anyone to get them to return the favor. Only facts and logic matter to me, that's why so many of them are reluctant to discuss, they have none or so little.
Adrian Marsh is a PHD Electrical Engineer whose papers are easily peer-review quality. Do you have any actual comments on his ranged telluric experimeents?
QuoteOnly facts and logic matter to me
Same, which is why i've been backing up my statements with detailed recent and historical references and eperiments.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.13, 11:21:57
Adrian Marsh is a PHD Electrical Engineer whose papers are easily peer-review quality. Do you have any actual comments on his ranged telluric experimeents?
...
It transmitted a radio signal on 1.86 Mhz with 400 W, for only 8 miles. This is what you would expect from a radio antenna as small as its Tesla coil.
It distinguishes between the two modes, radio and longitudinal waves, according to the resonance, whereas such a device can have several classical resonance frequencies.
He confirms, as I also said, that a Tesla coil is sensitive to radio waves. So I don't see anything in his work that proves that it would not be radio waves that he would receive in all cases.
If he thinks that longitudinal waves pass through the earth, why does he put his coil on the surface? Let him put it deep underground in a cellar, or in an airtight container underwater, and if there is still a significant signal, we'll talk about it.
F6FLT
QuoteContrary to the experts in FE who congratulate each other and comfort each other in their illusions, I don't need to flatter anyone to get them to return the favor. Only facts and logic matter to me, that's why so many of them are reluctant to discuss, they have none or so little.
As always it's debatable and if the scientific community has everything figured out why are they so useless?.
99% of the scientific community are still driving primitive vehicles and living in primitive houses based on 1950's technology. They still get almost all there fuel, power and heat from fossil fuels which is essentially rotten dead plant and animal matter. They seem more like little children completely dependent on others for all the necessities to survive. So if there so smart... why are they so useless?.
Take global warming, there supposed solution is to ban fossil fuels and convert to electric vehicles and HVAC when the current grid technology can only handle 30% of the predicted load. Oh wait, there's the nuclear option however we know what a fiasco that turned into and they have no idea how to manage the cost, maintenance or toxic waste. Maybe there trillion dollar god particle smasher program yet to show any practical results?. Let's be honest it's all turned into a complete shit show and nobody has a clue how to even begin to solve our problems.
On the other hand I have great news...
The gross incompetence and complete failure by the business and science communities to find any practical solutions to our problems makes the Clean/Free Energy community look fabulous. Sure we may have some problems but apparently no more than anyone else...
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.13, 16:53:50
F6FLT
As always it's debatable and if the scientific community has everything figured out why are they so useless?.
99% of the scientific community are still driving primitive vehicles and living in primitive houses based on 1950's technology.
Selection bias. In front of a denial of the current technology which has considerably evolved since 1950, there is nothing to say, it is a psychological effect.
If you wanted to tell us about the benefits of free energy and alternative sciences, there is no need for denial. There's nothing. Not even a smartphone, not even a flat screen, not even an MRI, not even a PC, not even a microwave oven. Nada de nada. Nichts. ничего. Rien. The technological production of alternative science gives an idea of the nothingness. Alternative science is not science.
When a movement has produced nothing but nothingness, I think it is better to keep quiet and do some introspection, rather than criticizing scientists with computer and networks means that did not exist in 1950 and that come from their science!
We use fossil fuels because they have proved cheaper to produce and are more profitable than investment in alternatives, such as fusion, and other sources of energy.
I try to look beyond what we use now, and wonder if we have missed anything along the way.
I see UFO's and wonder how they are powered, how they propel themselves. What mistakes were made developing them? What discoveries led to their development?
As for FE status, Centraflow has a working prototype. I think he said the output was about 700 watts, input much less.
At least two Spherics-type devices should be completed this year and we'll see if any of what he said is correct.
The alternate energy forum claims to have an OU device. Itsu is working on his own version.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.09.13, 18:15:42
We use fossil fuels because they have proved cheaper to produce and are more profitable than investment in alternatives, such as fusion, and other sources of energy.
I try to look beyond what we use now, and wonder if we have missed anything along the way.
I see UFO's and wonder how they are powered, how they propel themselves. What mistakes were made developing them? What discoveries led to their development?
As for FE status, Centraflow has a working prototype. I think he said the output was about 700 watts, input much less.
At least two Spherics-type devices should be completed this year and we'll see if any of what he said is correct.
The alternate energy forum claims to have an OU device. Itsu is working on his own version.
All I see here are conspiracy theories, fairy tales and science fiction.
It makes no sense to talk about energy without mentioning the cost, the state of human knowledge or the time needed for research.
Every era has its own type of energy. Before the 19th century, it was wood. In the 19th century, it was coal. The 20th century was oil, fusion was not yet within our reach, now it is theoretically possible but still very problematic. And on top of that, politicians are impoverishing people in order to produce intermittent energies, such as wind or voltaic, in a hurry, under the pressure of environmental lobbies and the green industry.
The people who claim to have FE plus the people who are working on FE give us a huge number of people who have not produced anything yet. With LED lighting, scientists have saved us much more energy than the others have ever produced.
F6FLT
QuoteSelection bias. In front of a denial of the current technology which has considerably evolved since 1950, there is nothing to say, it is a psychological effect.
If you wanted to tell us about the benefits of free energy and alternative sciences, there is no need for denial. There's nothing. Not even a smartphone, not even a flat screen, not even an MRI, not even a PC, not even a microwave oven. Nada de nada. Nichts. ничего. Rien. The technological production of alternative science gives an idea of the nothingness. Alternative science is not science.
I think you may have it backwards and almost every revolutionary new discovery/theory was ridiculed initially and labelled alternative science. Einstein was called a quack, a heretic, a fraud and supposedly one year later only one other person had the integrity to claim they understood it. As well, Nikola Tesla received the same harsh treatment for his "alternative science" we now call polyphase induction motor/generator technology. It was Tesla, the engineer/inventor who opened up a whole new field for science to study.
QuoteWhen a movement has produced nothing but nothingness, I think it is better to keep quiet and do some introspection, rather than criticizing scientists with computer and networks means that did not exist in 1950 and that come from their science!
Sorry to burst your bubble but the person credited for inventing the first real computer was Charles Babbage, an inventor and engineer. As well, most who contributed to the technology were also an inventor/engineers. It was only after the technology was realized that it was studied and became a science as is most often the case. For example, all the computer operating systems we know and use were invented by people who started programming in there garage ie. Gates, Jobs, Linux, not scientists.
It's not a difficult concept, people/inventors discover and invent stuff then scientists study it. Science: "the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement". The definition doesn't mention discovery or invention anywhere to my knowledge.
Most people seem confused on this matter and one cannot study something which is not in there possession or can be measured. Creativity, experimentation, discovery and invention always comes first. Once we have discovered/invented something then we can begin to study it which is where science comes in. So many seem to be putting the cart before the horse...
Regards
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.13, 19:22:58
All I see here are conspiracy theories, fairy tales and science fiction.
It makes no sense to talk about energy without mentioning the cost, the state of human knowledge or the time needed for research.
Every era has its own type of energy. Before the 19th century, it was wood. In the 19th century, it was coal. The 20th century was oil, fusion was not yet within our reach, now it is theoretically possible but still very problematic. And on top of that, politicians are impoverishing people in order to produce intermittent energies, such as wind or voltaic, in a hurry, under the pressure of environmental lobbies and the green industry.
The people who claim to have FE plus the people who are working on FE give us a huge number of people who have not produced anything yet. With LED lighting, scientists have saved us much more energy than the others have ever produced.
Starting the with the assumption that we missed something...
Maxwell included the longitudinal wave in his original equations. This was later removed after his death, assuming LW's do not exist. Tesla insisted that they do exist and purported to use them.
Tesla's radiant electrical effect. What the hell was he talking about? He collected charges from the sky even when the sky was night and charged capacitors. He further showed in his patents that spark gaps (with reflector) and some tubes (Roentgen or Leonard tubes) produced the same effect as the sky (space? sun?) What was he collecting / detecting?
On the scalar longitudinal wave thread, an author claims to detect these waves from the sun during an eclipse. What did he detect?
Are these phenomenon the same thing?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.13, 19:51:24
I think you may have it backwards and almost every revolutionary new discovery/theory was ridiculed initially and labelled alternative science. Einstein was called a quack, a heretic, a fraud and supposedly one year later only one other person had the integrity to claim they understood it. As well, Nikola Tesla received the same harsh treatment for his "alternative science" we now call polyphase induction motor/generator technology. It was Tesla, the engineer/inventor who opened up a whole new field for science to study.
It's not a difficult concept, people/inventors discover and invent stuff then scientists study it. Science: "the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement". The definition doesn't mention discovery or invention anywhere to my knowledge.
Most people seem confused on this matter and one cannot study something which is not in there possession or can be measured. Creativity, experimentation, discovery and invention always comes first. Once we have discovered/invented something then we can begin to study it which is where science comes in. So many seem to be putting the cart before the horse...
Regards
AC
Indeed one can be a very intelligent expert and still be operating on a false or incomplete set of assumptions. I recall even Einstein ridiculed the idea of Quantum Mechanics, as most of the scientific community ridiculed the Big Bang (likely due to the Catholic bishop that coined the theory and its apparent creationist implications.)
The sad part though is that because it's deemed impossible, those people won't perform experiments, which makes their failure a self-fulfilled prophecy. :-\https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4321.msg100548#msg100548
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.13, 19:51:24
F6FLT
I think you may have it backwards and almost every revolutionary new discovery/theory was ridiculed initially and labelled alternative science. Einstein was called a quack, a heretic, a fraud and supposedly one year later only one other person had the integrity to claim they understood it. As well, Nikola Tesla received the same harsh treatment for his "alternative science" we now call polyphase induction motor/generator technology. It was Tesla, the engineer/inventor who opened up a whole new field for science to study.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the person credited for inventing the first real computer was Charles Babbage, an inventor and engineer. As well, most who contributed to the technology were also an inventor/engineers. It was only after the technology was realized that it was studied and became a science as is most often the case. For example, all the computer operating systems we know and use were invented by people who started programming in there garage ie. Gates, Jobs, Linux, not scientists.
It's not a difficult concept, people/inventors discover and invent stuff then scientists study it. Science: "the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement". The definition doesn't mention discovery or invention anywhere to my knowledge.
Most people seem confused on this matter and one cannot study something which is not in there possession or can be measured. Creativity, experimentation, discovery and invention always comes first. Once we have discovered/invented something then we can begin to study it which is where science comes in. So many seem to be putting the cart before the horse...
Regards
AC
Do you ever read and try to understand what others write? It becomes exhausting to repeat that the reasoning you hold is simply wrong. I have already explained why here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4350.msg100716#msg100716.
So same answer:
The fact that someone was taken for a fool because what he was saying was taken for nonsense, and what he was saying was later proven to be correct and he was a genius, does not prove that the nonsense that most people, especially in the FE movement, say will turn out to be scientific truths and they geniuses.
A particular case set up as a principle has no value. It is a basic logical fallacy that has absolutely no relevance to demonstrate anything about FE.
And note that it only took Einstein less than 5 years to convince of the validity of his theory, much more revolutionary than a longitudinal EM wave in free space. So today with the fast communication means, if in less than a year a so-called inventor of FE has not been able to transmit his know-how, it is because he is a moron or a charlatan and that in fact, he has nothing at all.
Instead of repeating professions of faith towards people and machines that would make free energy, provide the measurement protocol and measurements that would demonstrate FE, and the engineering plan that would allow to reproduce one.
I am not the bigot of a sectarian movement, and will not become one no matter how much the FE gurus proselytize and manipulate the naive. I need a little more than gossip. We don't need children's stories, sophistries and cheap philosophy. We need facts and logic.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.13, 20:35:28
...I recall even Einstein ridiculed the idea of Quantum Mechanics, as most of the scientific community ridiculed the Big Bang
...
This is a naivety and a great misunderstanding of the context. Einstein did not "ridicule" QM because everyone, including Einstein, agrees that the mathematical formalism of QM is correct and in accordance with experimental reality, and all the more so because it is Einstein who is finally at the origin of it, with the photo-electric effect for which he received the Nobel Prize, and which implies quantization.
What Einstein contested, with the thought experiment known as "EPR" and his joke "God does not play dice", was the interpretation of QM, that of the Copenhagen school, notably the ideas of Bohr. Since then, there have been several other interpretations of QM (Everett, Cramer's transactional interpretation, Rovelli's relational interpretation...), all of them compatible with the formalism of QM.
So for Einstein, QM is correct, it predicts the probability of a quantum event, but the specific result of a measurement would have an underlying cause according to him, contrary to Bohr's opinion that it is at random. It is not yet clear who would be right or wrong. Although I doubt, as Einstein did, that chance has any place in physics, my personal opinion is that Einstein is neither right nor wrong, but that we must understand differently the causality that is undermined in quantum experiments.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.09.14, 08:08:30
So for Einstein, QM is correct, it predicts the probability of a quantum event, but the specific result of a measurement would have an underlying cause according to him, contrary to Bohr's opinion that it is at random. It is not yet clear who would be right or wrong. Although I doubt, as Einstein did, that chance has any place in physics, my personal opinion is that Einstein is neither right nor wrong, but that we must understand differently the causality that is undermined in quantum experiments.
Good clarification. My point was on how many unlikely/impossible views historically are simply due to the paradigm in use at the time.
While heavier-than-air flight is indeed impossible from a static perspective, when you add dynamic motion and the right conditions, you introduce new solutions and asymmetries that do allow for it.
Hakasays
QuoteWhile heavier-than-air flight is indeed impossible from a static perspective, when you add dynamic motion and the right conditions, you introduce new solutions and asymmetries that do allow for it.
I agree and most people don't understand the real history of flight. 5000 years ago the ancient Egyptians understood static electricity and studied birds/built toy paper gliders. They were not stupid yet many believe the Americans miraculously invented flying devices and electricity less than 100 years ago. In fact many countries have slowly been "rewriting" there own version of history.
For example, many claim Einstein didn't even come up with GR and it was plagiarized from a french physicist named Louis de Broglie. Similar to the fact that Edison wasn't the greatest inventor, not even remotely close, and is only credited with inventing a few things. What Edison did do is steal or buy others inventions and patent them under the Edison corporation. Yet if we do a google search on the greatest inventor who's name always comes up?... Edison, which is a blatant lie.
So a person needs to be careful when doing research because the internet is littered with paid shills and special interests. In fact, I watched a documentary where anyone can hire a call center in US/India/Russia to spam the internet with whatever nonsense they want. As well many popular search engines like google exclude certain content and different search engines give completely different results. It's not a conspiracy, more so people or corporations wanting to protect there beliefs/interests which is natural.
As a researcher it makes our lives much more difficult because the most popular explanation or version of history is seldom if ever accurate.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.14, 13:39:56
...
While heavier-than-air flight is indeed impossible from a static perspective, when you add dynamic motion and the right conditions, you introduce new solutions and asymmetries that do allow for it.
I agree, we must always put ourselves in context.
Scientists don't talk about impossibility except in a precise framework. When Lord Kelvin declared heavier-than-air flight impossible, we are in 1895 and he made his calculation from the weight/energy ratio of the engines of the time. It is in this framework and only in this framework that it was impossible. He was right.
Not only the scientists of the time, but also the general public, knew that birds were heavier than air and yet flew. Nobody thought that "heavier-than-air flight" was absolutely impossible, and certainly not Lord Kelvin or the scientists, since everybody had the proof of the contrary by looking outside.
Everyone should understand what I just explained. I don't doubt that you do. By some references you gave, I could guess that academic science is also of interest to you and has some credibility.
But you should know that I have seen many ignorant people taking this example of "heavier-than-air flight impossible", taking Kelvin for a fool (Dunning-Kruger effect), to say that everything would be possible in spite of scientific knowledge. These people have not understood anything. It is not with such childish and general remarks that one can challenge scientific knowledge, but by going on its ground, that of the internal logic of the theories, that of the rigor of its mathematical language, that of their quantified predictions and their confrontation with measurements.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.14, 15:47:36
...
many claim Einstein didn't even come up with GR and it was plagiarized from a french physicist named Louis de Broglie.
...
You are mistaken about the French physicist, it is not De Broglie but Henri Poincaré who had realized all the mathematical formulation of the principles of general relativity, that Einstein was accused of plagiarizing.
But Henri Poincaré was more a mathematician than a physicist. Imho he did not understand the importance of his equations from a physical point of view, that they could constitute the architecture of a new and independent theory. Einstein was aware of Poincaré's work, but only for general relativity (special relativity is his alone), he was certainly inspired by it and that was a determining factor, but that's how scientific progress goes, everyone influences each other. Einstein did not plagiarize anyone, he succeeded in synthesizing what was, among physicists, in the air.
F6FLT
QuoteScientists don't talk about impossibility except in a precise framework. When Lord Kelvin declared heavier-than-air flight impossible, we are in 1895 and he made his calculation from the weight/energy ratio of the engines of the time. It is in this framework and only in this framework that it was impossible. He was right.
I disagree, if Kelvin knew heavier-than-air flight was possible but dependent on engines he should have been more specific. Such as "heavier-than-air flight is impossible at this point in time because our engines are heavy and weak". Anything less is generalized and probably misleading. If as you claim, "Scientists don't talk about impossibility except in a precise framework", then why did a scientist like Kelvin make an ambiguous statement?.
For example, Free Energy is possible using the same kind of reasoning heavier-than-air flight was possible. As Kelvin probably eluded, they had almost all the facts they needed to build an airplane but they did not have the understanding and technology to make one fly at that time. By the same reasoning the facts show we are swimming in a sea of energy but most do not have the understanding and technology to extract said energy at this time. In fact, Richard Feynman claimed as much in one of his lectures. Feynman implied energy isn't the problem the very small atomic scale where the motion/energy takes place is. If we could interact with the energy proven to be present on that scale then we could have all the energy we want anywhere for next to nothing.
Of course, the misinformed could assume the energy came out of nowhere however we know that's not true. My favorite fallacy is when someone claims to believe in the conservation of energy then in the next breath claims a FE device must have violated it, so which is it, can it be violated or not?. If not then obviously the energy must have come from somewhere...
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.14, 17:09:51
F6FLT
I disagree, if Kelvin knew heavier-than-air flight was possible but dependent on engines he should have been more specific.
...
You know everything, not only about science, but also about psychology, unlike that idiot Kelvin, that lousy pioneer of thermoelectricity who didn't even know that birds were heavier than air, who didn't even bother to specify the context of his remark for the less perceptive, and who only left his name to a temperature scale.
When the new brilliant minds of free energy produce it to the extent of their denigration of scientists, a great step will be taken for humanity. ;D ;D
F6FLT
QuoteYou know everything, not only about science, but also about psychology, unlike that idiot Kelvin, that lousy pioneer of thermoelectricity who didn't even know that birds were heavier than air, who didn't even bother to specify the context of his remark for the less perceptive, and who only left his name to a temperature scale.
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'"...Richard Feynman.
QuoteWhen the new brilliant minds of free energy produce it to the extent of their denigration of scientists, a great step will be taken for humanity.
Possibly however I don't think anyone needs to be brilliant or have multiple PhD's. They only need to be creative, imaginative, do real experiments to prove a matter for themselves and make something work. The mistake many fellow inventors make is in thinking they need to impress or prove themselves to others. For example there are many cases in the literature where a person/inventor was found to be powering there house off grid for decades with explainable devices. Apparently they figured out how all this works and didn't feel the need to tell others who tend to lose there mind when confronted with the unknown. I tend to agree with this approach...
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.14, 19:44:28
F6FLT
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'"...Richard Feynman.
It's not about respecting authority, it's about respecting competence. And for that, you have to know how to recognize it where it is, and therefore have a minimum of it yourself.
In the field of free energy, those who talk about current, magnetic field, electrons... while knowing how these notions are defined, are the exception. This ignorance of the scientific bases is one of the causes of their failures, and in addition they pretend to explain the secrets of so-and-so, giving delirious explanations to banal phenomena that they believe to be extraordinary.
Their only knowledge is that of a misunderstood scientific vulgarization, they talk about concepts coming from scientists as learned monkeys imitate man.
Quote
Possibly however I don't think anyone needs to be brilliant or have multiple PhD's. They only need to be creative, imaginative, do real experiments to prove a matter for themselves and make something work.
...
AC
I am not saying the contrary. So it is necessary to understand that the new free energy minds are neither creative nor imaginative since they do not produce any free energy.
Would they have forgotten that we are not in the artistic field but in the technology, and that the imagination must be confronted to the physical reality of the universe?
And that there is already a human knowledge about it, and that all the naiveties, the inconsistencies, and the foolishness that they tell us, and that the pioneers could have done at one time while building this knowledge, have been eliminated for good logical and observational reasons?
When they will understand that the reason of their permanent failures is that their ignorance and their pretentiousness is such that they have everything to learn from academic science before hoping for the slightest beginning of invention by themselves, a big step will be taken, too.
F6FLT
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'"...Richard Feynman.
QuoteIt's not about respecting authority, it's about respecting competence. And for that, you have to know how to recognize it where it is, and therefore have a minimum of it yourself.
In the field of free energy, those who talk about current, magnetic field, electrons... while knowing how these notions are defined, are the exception. This ignorance of the scientific bases is one of the causes of their failures, and in addition they pretend to explain the secrets of so-and-so, giving delirious explanations to banal phenomena that they believe to be extraordinary.
Their only knowledge is that of a misunderstood scientific vulgarization, they talk about concepts coming from scientists as learned monkeys imitate man.
That's an interesting interpretation of Feynman's quote. I read... forget who made the argument and ask yourself, is it reasonable?.
For example, when someone denies were swimming in a sea of energy despite all the facts we know proving this is the case. Then implies nobody could ever be smart enough to extract 1 watt of it... I find that unreasonable.
Equally unreasonable is when someone twists the facts claiming most truly believe they can get something from nothing which is not the case. Then claims a device must violate the COE when they should understand why it cannot be violated. I find this unreasonable because it is misleading and contradictory.
What I do find reasonable is the notion that the millions of people experimenting on electrical/energy systems daily could discover something new unknown to us. I base this on the fact that our history has proven this is the case countless times. Every day someone somewhere discovers something new we never thought of or thought impossible. I don't think that's an unreasonable argument...
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.09.15, 16:07:06
F6FLT
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'"...Richard Feynman.
That's an interesting interpretation of Feynman's quote. I read... forget who made the argument and ask yourself, is it reasonable?.
...
You completely missed the point. My answer does not concern Feynman with whom I agree on the refusal of the argument of authority.
It concerns your off-topic placement of Feynman's quote, since it is the argument from competence that must be respected, and this can also come from authority, such as Kelvin.
If the false always came from authority and the true from the omniscience of those who think they have an open mind because they don't have a PhD, we would already have Free energy. Unfortunately the latter is the exception, and as far as free energy is concerned, this exception has not yet occurred.