As I don't like censorship but also don't like assertions without proof or off-topic, I intend to move this type of posts made in my other threads here, so that everyone can judge the usefulness of having done so.
I will also put a copy of my requests for proof of assertions made in other threads, which have not been answered. This is not, of course, to demand justifications for all statements, but only for those unproven assertions that are said without a shadow of a doubt even though they seem implausible in relation to everything that is known about the field.
It should be seen not as a thread for trashing unwanted posts, which I have seen done elsewhere, but as an incentive for authors to justify their posts or amend them in the original thread where they posted.
Everyone is free to post copies of dubious claims here as well, provided 1) they accompany them with their reasons for doing so, and 2) they take into account that the dubiousness is relative to the canons of physics, engineering, and academic science, not to alternative theories or convictions of the poster. In other words, this thread is not meant to put as doubtful scientific assertions from theories that have obtained a large consensus, such as electromagnetism, QM, relativity... whose justifications are already provided everywhere to those who know how to study and understand them.
Thank you for reading
As no answer was given, I am copying Sm0ky2's posts from the "Archimedes' screw applied to electricity" thread here and have removed them from there.
Quote from: Sm0ky2 on 2022.10.25, 13:49:55
While the premise is intriguing, upon review of the proposed device, this can be simplified to a Linear Transformer.
Many of these devices are already in existence.
Energetically speaking, performance is in par with standard transformer theory, however:
The Time (T) of current translation is significantly slower, resulting in greater delays and ultimately lower maximum frequencies of operation.
Quote from: Sm0ky2 on 2022.10.25, 14:50:09
That being said, let's examine utilizing the true electrical representation of the Archimedian force translation:
(For in depth analysis)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228581326_The_Turn_of_the_Screw_Optimal_Design_of_an_Archimedes_Screw
Assuming an internal helix pitch of 6-degrees (for maximum force translation), and an angle of incidence to the magnetic of 33-degrees: (this was chosen not so arbitrarily, resultant from removal of friction, water tension, and hydrodynamic constants, and adjusted from the optimal angle range of 20-25 degrees)
The resultant elliptical coil (not round) results in an effective cut-off at extreme angles to the perpendicular with respect to the magnetic field.
The output waveform should be expected to resemble that of an analog square wave transformer.
The precise equations for calculating this are highly complex, however, Fourier transform tells us this can be simplified to a 2-part inductor, one with a coil diameter larger than the primary and a smaller coil with an angle of incidence to the perpendicular. From this analysis we can calculate the inductance of the two coils and apply their % of the effective area cross sections.
We see here that the Archimedes Screw Transformer must have a half-infinite area of the primary.
This essentially means that the cross-section area of the primary must be greater than Area^2 of the secondary.
Now: the Archimedes screw is 'reverse threaded' for a particular reason - the angle of incidence to the vertical combined with the pitch of the internal helix results in a force vector that closely approximates 180-degrees to the gravitational force.
Applying this to our electrical variant, we find that the secondary coil ellipse is oriented with a negative angle compared to the angle of incline of the coil shaft.
Meaning that if the top of the shaft and the top of the first elliptical coil are the same point, (using right hand rule) the coil will loop downwards one half loop then back up to nearly the start of the coil at the top end.
In a manner which places the loops of the secondary approximately horizontal. (Assuming the primary is oriented vertically)
This varies from a standard transformer in that during time (t) of one cycle: the inductance takes place mostly at maximum values through both halves of the duty cycle. (peak and trough), with the effective area of cut-off being negated in the inductance side of the equation, but accountable in the time domain. This is the "cut-off" time of the transformer or the time it takes to transition from a high state to a low state or vice versa. This time quantity is very small, which is why this closely approximates a square wave signal.
While i do not see an increase in COP, this device may very well be able to perform like a transformer of a larger size,
enabling us to create smaller devices.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.25, 15:30:19
In the Archimedes' screw applied to electricity the magnetic field is not necessary for operation, it is only a side effect if current is drawn. And we can also replace the solenoid by a zig-zag to cancel the possible magnetic field resulting from a load.
Moreover, the same principle works with a purely linear system: a small charged plate sliding over and along a long conductive strip will draw electrons creating a current in the strip, without any magnetic field.
Then you will have to explain how a "linear transformer" works without a magnetic field.
https://youtu.be/UcwBmqd60C4
Privately I did receive this opinion from smokey
Neutral or nil result to be expected!
not sure this is appropriate to place this response here ( will check with him later
Chet
@Chet
I have replied in the other thread :
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4373.msg101713#msg101713
Reference:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=18.msg101883#msg101883
It seems that my reply has been censored, lack of humour, probably.
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.11.03, 01:00:14
I've decided to donate another invention to the community. Here's my apparatus for magnetic quenching, since others have had difficulty with that.
...
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18.0;attach=46193;image)
Remarkable donation! I did have a lot of difficulty with this, my mind not being superior. The community will surely be grateful.
Is it more effective than this in the attached file? ;D
Might be better you ask administrator about this behavior ?
If this is one use for your bench ?
It will not be tolerated here !
I hope you have better things to do with your time soon !
You are skating on very thin ice with this thread. >:(
You are both right, I agree, I plead guilty, this kind of discussion should not take place here. But where can you criticise ridiculous claims? I wonder.
I don't want to continue the discussion here but I will respond to your criticism.
Shall I also present the principle of the Archimedean screw by pompously declaiming :
"I've decided to donate another invention to the community. Here's my apparatus for electron dragging, since others have had difficulty with that"?
or else
"I've decided to donate another way of thinking to the community. Here's my course about relativity, since others have had difficulty with that"?
It's a shame to read that here C.C. Only humour can answer this ridiculous pretension of those who pose as superior, making the "donation" of a basic, elementary, banal thing as if it were a treasure and they were the new Tesla. Here, we simply share our findings and knowledge, on an equal footing, it seems to me. Is the forum for sharing, or for receiving so-called donations or initiation from self-proclaimed experts?
If the actions of another do not resonate with you, perhaps just ignore it.
Francois
Every experiment a person shares is a gift!
Of time ( most valuable ) and resources!
If a member finds a simple way to perform experiments ( in a specific field )
Or some tool to assist!
And shares this with other interested parties!
It is A gift worth having ..and for those it helps worth receiving!
Thank you for your pending Archimedes gift
And also your gift of relativity!
Here it's a forum filled with builders of all skill sets and interests
Tolerance is mandatory on the bench work
Throwing popcorn or capacitors at other builders while they work ...
We should be coming to some agreements here !
Out of respect to our hosts wishes !
Too many times I have seen one catalyst bring chaos to forums
With others posting Funny's and such nonsense until a big mess develops!
This is wrong place for forum talk ..we have a topic
And this behavior needs addressing !
Ps
And yes there is Grumpy's suggestion!
Quote from: Chet K on 2022.11.03, 21:41:29
Francois
Every experiment a person shares is a gift!
...
I don't agree. For some it is a way of promotion, of recognition, and the so-called gifts are only the packaging of banalities, illusions, even lies. Accepting anything is counterproductive.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.11.03, 21:06:13
If the actions of another do not resonate with you, perhaps just ignore it.
A forum without discussion is an ordinary site. If some people want to monologue, the forum is not the right choice.
When you come to a forum, it is not to say mass or to listen to it, it is to exchange.
Saying amen to everything you read is the opposite of doing research in a group. To say nothing when you have an opinion is not only hypocrisy, but cowardice since you accept that others are misled by what you consider errors or lies, or that the author says anything without justification.
Ok Ill be tro** food
Demonstrating a complete absence of social skills ,empathy , consideration is still being an #####e ...is it not ?
You thrive on this stuff ...go on tell us why ..really why ?
So far nobody has had any benefit from anything you have said ...so far
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.03, 22:10:34
I don't agree. For some it is a way of promotion, of recognition, and the so-called gifts are only the packaging of banalities, illusions, even lies. Accepting anything is counterproductive.
A forum without discussion is an ordinary site. If some people want to monologue, the forum is not the right choice.
When you come to a forum, it is not to say mass or to listen to it, it is to exchange.
Saying amen to everything you read is the opposite of doing research in a group. To say nothing when you have an opinion is not only hypocrisy, but cowardice since you accept that others are misled by what you consider errors or lies, or that the author says anything without justification.
F6FLT, Just wondering if you had a chance to look at any of the fundamental stuff (B-H Curve "gain vs material" or
rolling magnetic field, etc.) found in the Holcomb, so called, LinGen using your CST CAE?
And, if so, what you might have concluded? Collaborating evidence is always welcome and appreciated.
Thanks and regards,
SL
F6FLT
FYI - here are some of the links where we discussed your using CST in an effort to
help in analyzing the Holcomb effect:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98903#msg98903
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98911#msg98911
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98912#msg98912
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98914#msg98914
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98918#msg98918
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98927#msg98927
No, the burden of proof is on the one questioning the presented valid evidence.
The unknown phenomenon is only unknown to one that is "not skilled in the art"
and one who is unwilling to put forth any effort to study the art.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg99780#msg99780
Facts and logic are derived within ones mind and proven through their capabilities.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg99791#msg99791
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg99796#msg99796
======= Initial query re: Your build or at least a CST simulation:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg99804#msg99804
====== Your reply to the above question - "computation time is too long" and "I
don't know what the LinGen is..." - Pathetic!
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg99809#msg99809
====== More non-sense... Rather than ask for further clarification, you give a
smart ass remark. Then change the subject to off-topic.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg99814#msg99814
======
NOTE: NO, your not going to lecture me about proper Forum protocol or what a
good forum is.
You have demonstrated YOU are the KING of "Claims without evidence and off
topic answers.
Regards and have a good one!
@Solarlab
Passing around tons of links without knowing exactly why they are produced, without logical relationships or circumstantial comments relating to the topic but with plenty of implication that this would be a response to what is being said, seems to be the favourite occupation of many.
Can you explain the meaning of your post? What are you trying to demonstrate and how? Where is the logic?
You know very well that modelling software like CST works according to the equations derived from the laws of physics, so that it cannot show anything abnormal in relation to them, a question of the mathematical formalism it uses.
If there is an anomaly, it is either a bug or a non-physical parameterization.
QuoteYou have demonstrated YOU are the KING of "Claims without evidence and off topic answers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2022.11.03, 22:21:21
Ok Ill be tro** food
Demonstrating a complete absence of social skills ,empathy , consideration is still being an #####e ...is it not ?
You thrive on this stuff ...go on tell us why ..really why ?
So far nobody has had any benefit from anything you have said ...so far
I have "social skills, empathy, consideration", especially for many here, but on the one hand there are never any in physics publications, in science one avoids playing with them because one seeks the truth and the truth is rarely pleasing, and on the other hand I avoid them for cheaters, people complacent about their ignorance, and omniscient pretentious people.
In our field I see them as obscurantists who turn the free energy movement into a cult cultivating beliefs and fighting scientific human knowledge while pretending to produce it.
They are obstacles to any research activity, burying our movement in nonsense to the point that if you look from outside, you can only see it. The result is that not only do they attract others like them who see an easy way to show off or enjoy beliefs, but they drive away competent people like ElectroBoom, the kind of guy who should be with us doing research but who sees so much crap that he mocks it and its authors, and rightly so.
We've been in a stalemate for years, the balance of power has to change unless you don't want free energy but just want to play Tesla like a kid plays Superman.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.03, 22:10:34
A forum without discussion is an ordinary site. If some people want to monologue, the forum is not the right choice.
When you come to a forum, it is not to say mass or to listen to it, it is to exchange.
Saying amen to everything you read is the opposite of doing research in a group. To say nothing when you have an opinion is not only hypocrisy, but cowardice since you accept that others are misled by what you consider errors or lies, or that the author says anything without justification.
If something does not resonate with me, I general have no opinion of it, and simply don't care enough to comment.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.04, 08:09:30
@Solarlab
Passing around tons of links without knowing exactly why they are produced, without logical relationships or circumstantial comments relating to the topic but with plenty of implication that this would be a response to what is being said, seems to be the favourite occupation of many.
Can you explain the meaning of your post? What are you trying to demonstrate and how? Where is the logic?
You know very well that modelling software like CST works according to the equations derived from the laws of physics, so that it cannot show anything abnormal in relation to them, a question of the mathematical formalism it uses.
If there is an anomaly, it is either a bug or a non-physical parameterization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
F6FLT,
As is obvious, the links are to some of your postings in the Holcomb thread where I presented the CAE Analysis of one aspect of Holcomb's
patent (coined the LinGen). The meanings are self explanatory, as is the content and intent - in simple terms, just for you - how the LinGen
works - but rather than pages of "wikipedia" cut and past, a professional CAE anlysis (which all engineers understand) is used !
Review these posts (I can't read them to you) and you will quickly see why I have coined you the "KING."
BTW (FYI) CAE follows the Laws of Physics; but apparently you do not understand this, or you just choose to remain uninformed and in the dark.
Also, these are links you yourself created so you know exactly why they were produced and what logical relationships they have to the topic.
I can fully appreciate this is one of your favourite occupations (mindless postings) but it's also mindless and of no value.
SL
So, try this - instead of running around like a chicken with a missing head, do the ANALYSIS for yourself by whatever means is available
to you. Then present your results as best you can. First however; study up a bit on some Mid School Physics, a.k.a. the BH Curves!
F6FLT
QuoteIn our field I see them as obscurantists who turn the free energy movement into a cult cultivating beliefs and fighting scientific human knowledge while pretending to produce it.
They are obstacles to any research activity, burying our movement in nonsense to the point that if you look from outside, you can only see it. The result is that not only do they attract others like them who see an easy way to show off or enjoy beliefs, but they drive away competent people like ElectroBoom, the kind of guy who should be with us doing research but who sees so much crap that he mocks it and its authors, and rightly so.
I have to agree but as always it's a matter of degrees and we can't paint everyone with the same brush.
For example, I really enjoy ElectroBoom's video's and he shows a good balance between learning, content and entertainment. He is also an EE yet can explain most things in simple terms which may explain his high ratings. Apparently he is a millionaire from all his you tube video's, good for him and I was thinking of a similar direction.
One video which caught my eye was his build and description of the slayer exciter. It was neat because it was myself and Dr.Stiffler who introduced the open gate self oscillator circuit to the FE community not slayer. I talked with Slayer and all he did was popularize the circuit after the fact with a nifty name. In any case I found it odd that ElectroBoom claimed he thought the circuit was nonsense at first because he didn't understand it. It was only after he actually built it that he understood how it works and it's relevance, the sign of a good engineer.
However when I invented the circuit with no prior knowledge I thought it was intuitive even as an Engineer. The electric field should induce the gate/base, more so when the base/emitter or gate/source junction is grounded. I started experimenting with contact charging the base/gate, then conductance with varied materials then finally by electric field induction. A mosfet is actually much slower than an open base 2N2222a in a Darligton pair configuration with a fast power transistor which was my first working circuit. I also thought the obvious line of reason should tend toward something faster like an RF Jfet but the small gate capacitance makes them unreliable.
For me it was simply an ordinary charge detector circuit tied to a power switch and absolutely intuitive which was why I developed it. As you have implied the physics dictate it had to work despite popular opinion thinking otherwise. You may not understand this but the future could not only be decentralized power generation but decentralized circuits. Why do we need conductance when the forces always seem to oppose our objective?. In my opinion conductance is the weakest argument and my focus always tended towards the primary fields and energy.
So I do agree with you that there is an extraordinary amount of nonsense out there but also some really cool idea's...
AC
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.11.04, 13:05:25
If something does not resonate with me, I general have no opinion of it, and simply don't care enough to comment.
And when it resonates well and you know it's wrong?
Quote from: solarlab on 2022.11.04, 13:08:19
F6FLT,
As is obvious, the links are to some of your postings in the Holcomb thread where I presented the CAE Analysis of one aspect of Holcomb's
patent (coined the LinGen). The meanings are self explanatory, as is the content and intent - in simple terms, just for you - how the LinGen
works - but rather than pages of "wikipedia" cut and past, a professional CAE anlysis (which all engineers understand) is used !
Review these posts (I can't read them to you) and you will quickly see why I have coined you the "KING."
BTW (FYI) CAE follows the Laws of Physics; but apparently you do not understand this, or you just choose to remain uninformed and in the dark.
Also, these are links you yourself created so you know exactly why they were produced and what logical relationships they have to the topic.
I can fully appreciate this is one of your favourite occupations (mindless postings) but it's also mindless and of no value.
SL
So, try this - instead of running around like a chicken with a missing head, do the ANALYSIS for yourself by whatever means is available to you. Then present your results as best you can. First however; study up a bit on some Mid School Physics, a.k.a. the BH Curves!
I'm past the age of being fooled by this childish sophism of "until you read my hundreds of references I consider you to know nothing about the subject".
If you are not able to summarize or synthesize why your models would prove Holcomb's machine, when models only provide results in accordance with the laws of physics used by these softwares, thus without overunity except for bugs or non-physical parameterizations, we find no intelligible reason to go and see your references, and we can also conclude that by calling others "KING of Claims without evidence and off topic answers", you are in full projection.
@AC
I agree with everything you say. Anyone can make a mistake whether they are on one side or the other, even ElectroBoom, and discover belatedly that something they didn't believe in works. It's not a big deal when people act in good faith and then recognize that it works. Conversely, one would like those who propose setups that no one has ever been able to make work according to what they were supposed to do, such as having free energy from Kelly setups, to acknowledge their bad ideas. Unfortunately...
And I also agree with you, even without being a PhD one can very well invent clever setups that work, I can tell you that in the field of amateur radio there are plenty of them. Even I have "invented" a double sine frequency oscillator and F1+F2 mix output with a single triode, or a full wave rectifier for ASK/FSK demodulation using a single diode and an op amp, or an air plasma oscillator thanks to its negative resistance...
But just because it's original doesn't mean it's not completely in accordance with the laws of physics. I suppose that when you invented your exciter, you didn't start shouting everywhere that you had free energy, because I see you rather as reasonable. But often it is claimed as such when people don't understand what they are doing or want to pretend to be the experts they are not. That's where the problem lies, so even if you're not a physics whizz, you have to know enough not to think you're inventing hot water, and when you present something, make sure it works for others too, or shut up about your extravagant claims.
By the way, you mentioned Dr. Stiffler. This name reminds me of something but I am not sure at all. I did an experiment a few years ago, where unconnected diodes were simply immersed in an electrolyte. They rectified the current induced in the electrolyte by a coil or a plate outside, and bubbles appeared on their two wires, it was quite amazing. Wasn't this his idea or am I confusing it with someone else's?
F6FLT
Always nice to know that when you have clearly presented your case and there is no logical rebuttal argument - you get censored!
It's sort of funny, in a sick way... but does serve as a good indicator. Enjoy your new found "power" and thanks for making the World
a better place.
:)
SL
@Solarlab
No one here is censored. My moderation applies to the form of the comments, not to the content related to the topics.
Insults, attacks on the person, slander, like your reply #17 ("you just choose to remain uninformed and in the dark" or "instead of running around like a chicken...") are not allowed here.
Note that I left it and asked you to explain the bundles of references you throw around.
You continued in the same tone, and again now. That's enough.
I explained to you that I have no reason to go to your simulations if you don't provide any analysis.
In a work, simulations or measurements are in the appendices. No simulation is "self evident". The work is to present the results, to draw conclusions from them, to explain the logical relationships between the two, to synthesise the whole by explaining the interest. About twenty lines should be enough.
I don't have to put up with your slanderous comments because I refuse to analyse your simulations. It is not my job to do yours.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.11.06, 19:43:28
@Solarlab
No one here is censored. My moderation applies to the form of the comments, not to the content related to the topics.
Insults, attacks on the person, slander, like your reply #17 ("you just choose to remain uninformed and in the dark" or "instead of running around like a chicken...") are not allowed here.
Note that I left it and asked you to explain the bundles of references you throw around.
You continued in the same tone, and again now. That's enough.
I explained to you that I have no reason to go to your simulations if you don't provide any analysis.
In a work, simulations or measurements are in the appendices. No simulation is "self evident". The work is to present the results, to draw conclusions from them, to explain the logical relationships between the two, to synthesise the whole by explaining the interest. About twenty lines should be enough.
I don't have to put up with your slanderous comments because I refuse to analyse your simulations. It is not my job to do yours.
I like CAE Simulations because the Resultant Analysis are "Self Explanatory" and presented, generally, in a simple to understand graphical form!
But hey, whatever...
Plus, you can take the system down to microns and femto-seconds, in other words, nothing is missed or guessed at. Hard to do using Analytical Mathematics
and formulas - using all the required interactive equations you'd be at it for 10 thousand years even with a high speed calculator - Numerical Analysis, even using
detailed 3D Graphics, with modest resolution on a complex structure; maybe a day or two on a slow laptop....
Quote from: solarlab on 2023.01.08, 16:42:56
YES - Excess Energy can, and HAS ALREADY, been achieved!
Holcomb Energy Systems Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/holcombenergysystems
...
All the information on the Holcomb system comes from Holcomb alone, judge and jury.
I therefore find it hard to understand the point of advertising their ads and parroting what they say when no third party has duplicated their equipment, equipment whose alleged principle is false, let's remember, since a spin has never provided more energy than is applied to it.
And the clichés about a green world that they trot out around the presentations of their machine are also a bad sign of possible manipulation, which does not encourage trust.
I don't know yet what will come of this, but what is certain is that to assert today from Holcomb that free energy exists is an pure leap of faith.
In this patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en Tesla proposes to transmit energy at a distance through the earth.
The principle:
Tesla represents the earth as a perfect conductor serving as a reservoir of electrical charges. The idea is to "shake" the earth's electrons around the device by a back-and-forth effect of the electrons between the earth and a capacitor, thanks to a very high voltage resonant device with a terminal capacitor at the top. The action on the earth electrons is not only through the earth connection, but through the remote influence of the capacitor.
A wave will propagate through the earth from this agitation. Precautions are taken to avoid hertzian waves. The resonance frequency is chosen to obtain a standing wave through the earth, that is to say that the earth diameter must be an odd multiple of the quarter wave.
The looping of this wave towards his device, in order to obtain a stationary wave, is supposed to be done at the surface of the earth, at the extravagant speed of 471240 km/s, estimated value for which he gives no explanation, not more than on the lowest usable frequency, for him 6 Hz thus not odd multiple of the earth diameter but equivalent to a half-wave around the earth at the speed he provided.
A tuned receiver, somewhere on earth, would thus recover a part of the emitted energy, differently and more or less efficiently depending on whether it would be an integral part of a node of the standing wave system or whether it would only take a sample of it.
Analysis:
The earth is an enormous reservoir of charges. But the back and forth of charges between the earth and the capacitor does not involve more charges than the capacitor can hold. So there is a huge imbalance between the amount of charges in the earth, and the amount of charges in the capacity. Only a very small amount of earth charges will be affected, which the very high voltages used cannot compensate.
This quantity of oscillating charges will represent a current through the earth. The fact that the earth is seen as a capacitance does not cancel out its electrical resistance, so huge losses are to be expected, which will dissipate the energy over short distances compared to the diameter of the earth. Let's not even talk about the skin effect.
The looping of the wave by its propagation on the surface of the earth is also doubtful, the electrons on the surface of the earth being also subject to resistance. On the other hand, it is surprising that the wavelength chosen by Tesla depends only on the diameter of the earth, while to be stationary while being looped, it is an even multiple of the diameter + half-circumference that should be chosen, taking into account the speed of propagation in each mode.
Effects in real life:
At short distance, it is sure that the device works. A current in the earth can be intercepted with a resonant system in the same way as it is produced. This resonant system will be all the more efficient as there will be a near field coupling between the two terminal capacitances, the transmitter and the receiver.
The device agitates the earth charges only on a very limited area around the system foot. At long distances the ohmic losses dissipate the current and therefore the movement of the charges. To move charges further, a much higher tower would be needed, influencing more distant charges. At distances of tens or hundreds of times the height of the resonant system, the coupling will be drastically reduced, no efficient transmission of energy is possible, especially around the earth, unless you have a tower of non-negligible height compared to the dimensions of the earth, that is to say thousands of km high.
Artifacts:
I see at least two, the Hertzian waves and the issue of power lines feeding the device.
A Tesla coil is a very bad radio antenna, but nevertheless it is one. It radiates electromagnetic waves. When the powers involved are enormous, which is the case, it is impossible to eliminate them totally and low energy signals can be transmitted at great distance.
Finally, it is certain that, without extreme precaution, a non-negligible part of the oscillating electrical energy is re-injected into the electrical lines feeding such a system, either directly through the components of the device by capacitive or inductive effect, or by bad filtering, or by the coupling of these lines with the resonant system. This system influencing the earth charges around it, also influences those of the electric lines around it, and even better because allowing a better coupling. These long lines then act as transmission lines with respect to the earth (common mode), being able to propagate the oscillating current to tens of Km and radiate it in hertzian.
This explains all the facts around the principle. It is understandable that the oscillating energy of such systems can be recovered at short distance, detected at longer distance, but unable to transmit significant energy at very long distance, hence the failure of Tesla to demonstrate his system. It was an unconvincing draft of his future patent 1 119 732 not more convincing.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4375.0;attach=46883;image)
F6, thank you for your thorough response.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.01.12, 10:45:55
But the back and forth of charges between the earth and the capacitor does not involve more charges than the capacitor can hold. So there is a huge imbalance between the amount of charges in the earth, and the amount of charges in the capacity. Only a very small amount of earth charges will be affected, which the very high voltages used cannot compensate.
Since we're dealing with displacement current, I think current would be a better metric to focus on.
Voltages at the topload will largely be dependent on the combined system impedance (which is primarily determined by the ground impedance).
Examples:
1000 ampere of displacement current into the ground requires 50kv volts at 50 ohms impedance, but this only requires 1kv with 1 ohms impedance.
For a large setup like Wardenclyffe where 0.1 ohms ground impedance is likely, 500kilo-amps of ground currents might result at only 50kv.
But whether such large currents can be picked up at terrestrial distances remains to be seen.
Quote from: F6FLT
This quantity of oscillating charges will represent a current through the earth. The fact that the earth is seen as a capacitance does not cancel out its electrical resistance, so huge losses are to be expected, which will dissipate the energy over short distances compared to the diameter of the earth. Let's not even talk about the skin effect.
Direct current resistance doesn't quite apply since we're dealing with alternating currents and impulses. Conduction current vs displacement current, and a body that is a poor with conduction current tends to perform good with displacement current.
For example, 1/4in bar of of HDPE will have horrible conduction resistance (in the gigaohms), but it is nearly lossless and transparent to RF displacement currents, especially below 1Mc.
But you're quite correct F6 that there are many loss factors at play when dealing with such a large and complex body as the Earth.
* dielectric loss tangents of crust, mantle, etc and every element contained within (which also vary based on frequency)
* impedance and refractive boundaries
* large unpredictable combinations of materials
It may prove that efficient transmission can only happen effectively where the telluric medium is homogeneous (ie: ocean-to-ocean, or within a specific geologic strata)
Quote from: F6FLT
The principle:
Tesla represents the earth as a perfect conductor serving as a reservoir of electrical charges. The idea is to "shake" the earth's electrons around the device by a back-and-forth effect of the electrons between the earth and a capacitor, thanks to a very high voltage resonant device with a terminal capacitor at the top. The action on the earth electrons is not only through the earth connection, but through the remote influence of the capacitor.
A wave will propagate through the earth from this agitation. Precautions are taken to avoid hertzian waves. The resonance frequency is chosen to obtain a standing wave through the earth, that is to say that the earth diameter must be an odd multiple of the quarter wave.
The terms and terminology have evolved and solidified quite a bit since Tesla's day, and you'll see similar unique vocabulary used by other EE's of that era. There are of course still losses but they are different from transverse radiation losses.
The simplest modern analogy I would use is to say that in Tesla's system, the Earth is apparently treated as a dielectric rather than a conductor.Quote from: F6FLT
The looping of this wave towards his device, in order to obtain a stationary wave, is supposed to be done at the surface of the earth, at the extravagant speed of 471240 km/s, estimated value for which he gives no explanation, not more than on the lowest usable frequency, for him 6 Hz thus not odd multiple of the earth diameter but equivalent to a half-wave around the earth at the speed he provided.
A tuned receiver, somewhere on earth, would thus recover a part of the emitted energy, differently and more or less efficiently depending on whether it would be an integral part of a node of the standing wave system or whether it would only take a sample of it.
We could assume that Tesla's measured propagation velocity was an artifact of the way that it was measured.
That would explain why Charles Wheatstone arrived at a nearly identical velocity of ~463000 km/s, and why many 'speed of light' experiments done today have similar PI/2*C signal anomalies in them.
Quote from: F6FLT
Artifacts:
I see at least two, the Hertzian waves and the issue of power lines feeding the device.
A Tesla coil is a very bad radio antenna, but nevertheless it is one. It radiates electromagnetic waves. When the powers involved are enormous, which is the case, it is impossible to eliminate them totally and low energy signals can be transmitted at great distance.
Finally, it is certain that, without extreme precaution, a non-negligible part of the oscillating electrical energy is re-injected into the electrical lines feeding such a system, either directly through the components of the device by capacitive or inductive effect, or by bad filtering, or by the coupling of these lines with the resonant system. This system influencing the earth charges around it, also influences those of the electric lines around it, and even better because allowing a better coupling. These long lines then act as transmission lines with respect to the earth (common mode), being able to propagate the oscillating current to tens of Km and radiate it in hertzian.
Indeed, it is a very complex system with many modes+possibilities. There's even unknown components/modes like Zenneck waves, and even the possibility that the nearby terrain itself might even become a herzian radiator against the ionosphere when peak ground currents exceed 1,000 amperes.
There have been so few faithful replications and experiments since Tesla's day that I don't think we can make any definitive conclusions as to the result of Tesla's experiments a century ago, or what might be possible by exploring this field more thoroughly.
There's a good chance our team will fail to reproduce the telluric results of Tesla, which is fine because at least we'll know we made a very rigorous and faithful attempt. 8)
@Hack
All I see from you is speculation.
Did Tesla power stations thousands of miles away?
Never
What are the facts?
None, except for short distance transmissions.
So there is nothing to discuss, short range transmissions are part of the commonplace and everything is conventional.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.01.13, 16:33:56
@Hack
All I see from you is speculation.
We are both speculating. :)
Much of the details of Tesla's experiments are 100+yrs old, and we don't know what was lost in the trunkloads of notes+papers confiscated after his death in 1943.
Much like 'Tesla's 'X-ray tubes', the only way we can conclusively say what is and isn't possible is with faithful investigation and experiment.
And unfortunately, because of the nature of displacement currents and impedance, Tesla's telluric work appears to require a very intense ground that is beyond the reach of many/most amateur experimenters and HAMs.
Our small team is progressing as best we can, balanced against work and school and other active projects. 8) Your advice and tips/tricks are always appreciated as well. ;)
This thread is not for discussion, see the first post of this thread for explanation :
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4375.msg101664#msg101664
There are enough useless threads to discuss elsewhere about these FE claims that never worked and will never work for the same reasons they never worked.
You can post a link to where you discuss the claim.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.28, 09:46:22
As no answer was given, I am copying Sm0ky2's posts from the "Archimedes' screw applied to electricity" thread here and have removed them from there.
The answer wasn't meant to be given, but rather realized.
as the answer was evident in the analogy you used as a rebuttal.
There is always a magnetic field present.
Wether we are looking at/for it or not.
Place a sensitive compass next to a whimshurst machine
(this is a more complex version of your two metal strips, invented by James wimshurst in 1877)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine)
And for the record, if i am expected to write you a college paper for everything i post,
I'll go back to overunity.com
Thank you for allowing me to join your group,
but that's not really my cup of tea, everyone takes their own path of education.
i cannot take you along my path, i can only share the pieces that will help you along yours:
Let me ask:
Does the claim that that the e field is equal to the b field times the speed of light require evidence, in order to be used in a discussion? Or do we just blindly implement it in our own personal equations, then ignore it when it suits our perception of knowledge?
Or do we point out all the places you in other threads where you have already proven this for me. PRIOR to censoring my posts?
One example of how to calculate this:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Electromagnetic-model-of-oblique-elliptical-coil_fig1_230988739 (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Electromagnetic-model-of-oblique-elliptical-coil_fig1_230988739)
This is a paper where it is implemented in particle accelerators: (maintaining a planar coil structure, along the Archimedean hypotenuse:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.871052?journalCode=php (https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.871052?journalCode=php)
Here is a physic's demonstration:
https://youtu.be/vWeaZAfCxFQ (https://youtu.be/vWeaZAfCxFQ)
Here is an explanation for children:
https://homework.study.com/explanation/1-draw-the-coil-of-wire-at-an-angle-to-a-magnetic-field-2-draw-and-label-a-vector-that-you-can-use-to-keep-track-of-the-direction-of-the-coil-the-most-convenient-vector-is-one-perpendicular-to-t.html (https://homework.study.com/explanation/1-draw-the-coil-of-wire-at-an-angle-to-a-magnetic-field-2-draw-and-label-a-vector-that-you-can-use-to-keep-track-of-the-direction-of-the-coil-the-most-convenient-vector-is-one-perpendicular-to-t.html)
you can derive the field again using the intensity of the electric field:
= (c/u0)B^2 <1.571(radians)
or you can build 2 coils and observe the differences yourself.
Quote from: Sm0ky2 on 2023.04.04, 06:35:47
...
Let me ask:
Does the claim that that the e field is equal to the b field times the speed of light require evidence, in order to be used in a discussion?
...
Of course, because you are talking about an oversimplification that makes no sense without context, and is even false as you have presented it.
This relationship is only true
- for an electromagnetic wave
- for the amplitude of fields, but these fields are vectors, the relation is false for vectors.
So it is not the fields E and B that are related by c, but only their amplitude, and only in one particular case.
In the same way, it is not enough to refer to links as if they support what you say. You have to express yourself in what and why they would be relevant, and to prove what.
"Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?"
This question comes up regularly in the signature of a contributor here, and as it makes absolutely no sense, it's a bit of a pain. "1KW" is a power, not a charge.
Or maybe that question was just surreal humor? but I'm going to assume it's serious.
If you ask it more intelligently, for example by specifying that 1KW is the power used to charge a capacitor, or that 1KV is what you should read, the charging voltage, then you can answer it: the system is closed, it remains electrically neutral, so there's no interaction with the outside, the environment won't do anything to the second plate.
If we ask the question more intelligently, but with another option, for example specifying that it's not 1KW but 1C of electrical charge that we've placed on one plate while the other was unconnected, we can also answer it: the number of charges on the second plate won't change, only its potential. The capacitor will be seen globally as a 1C charge that will cause a redistribution of charges in the environment, and the potentials of each plate will depend on their mutual capacitance AND the capacitance of each in relation to the environment. It's as if we had 3 capacitors. That's easy to calculate too.