PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-02-28, 12:08:24
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8
Author Topic: Help Building a special transformer ?  (Read 66201 times)
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

They were the first two verses of "Ballad of a Thin Man" by Bob Dylan.

I just Googled "rogue wave."  Fascinating stuff.  There are clips of surfers on YouTube where the surfer looks like an ant on the wave.

Quote
The Peregrine soliton presents a double spatio-temporal localization. Therefore, starting from a weak oscillation on a continuous background, the Peregrine soliton develops undergoing a progressive increase of its amplitude and a narrowing of its temporal duration.

OMG that sounds like "free energy speak" but it's legit!  lol

Also, you must know about that female engineer that put an entire C64 on a single chip and added 30 games and put the entire thing inside a joystick!  I think that's hilarious, the entire computer plus games is inside the joystick!  Like the computer imploded.

Quote
You hand in your ticket
And you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, "How does it feel
To be such a freak?"
And you say, "Impossible"
As he hands you a bone.

And something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

MileHigh
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
MH
Quote

And something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, M H ??

------------
Catchy tune.....

I hope to be Singing you that tune shortly!![I'm practicing humming it Now ;!)
THX
Chet
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1434
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
If your humming resonates with your coils...

You'll feel the choir singing in your temple...

Kablooie!
Kinda like a reverse Daniel Pomerleau.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
...My suggestion is that every time you make an argument, find its counter argument.  Every argument has a counter argument.  This way, you'll never want to argue again unless it is necessary. 

"Every argument has a counter argument": when we deal with facts, observations, measurements, math and logic, it's possible. Nevertheless the goal is to get a right argument, the best one that fits our observations. The goal is neither to make a collection of arguments nor to challenge a solid argument with a weak counter argument. We must have operational results so we must be able to reject bad arguments. The arguments are not all of even relevance. When I propose an argument, it is the result of a choice among several different or opposed arguments. If someone has a better one, he can give it, we can change our mind.

When we deal with faith, beliefs, and opinions, it's false: there is no possible counter argument, but other faith, beliefs, and opinions, just to be affirmed outside of the reason. Normally this second point should never happen here  :).


   
Group: Guest
I believe Ex exists...Some how he always has and he always will........Super EX...

Just like perpetual motion being unusual?? Everything is always moving...
...

"Everything is always moving", yes, for example electrons around the nucleus.
I suppose that each of us know this, and also that the question is to extract energy from motion without stopping the moving object: this is the real concept under "perpetual motion".


   
Group: Guest
"Every argument has a counter argument": when we deal with facts, observations, measurements, math and logic, it's possible. Nevertheless the goal is to get a right argument, the best one that fits our observations. The goal is neither to make a collection of arguments nor to challenge a solid argument with a weak counter argument. We must have operational results so we must be able to reject bad arguments. The arguments are not all of even relevance. When I propose an argument, it is the result of a choice among several different or opposed arguments. If someone has a better one, he can give it, we can change our mind.

When we deal with faith, beliefs, and opinions, it's false: there is no possible counter argument, but other faith, beliefs, and opinions, just to be affirmed outside of the reason. Normally this second point should never happen here  :).




The problem is that those who judge arguments are audiences, not the the people who argues. 
   
Group: Guest
The problem is that those who judge arguments are audiences, not the the people who argues. 

In science, an argument is logically related to the observations.
If only faith, beliefs, and opinions are expressed in a thread, there is nothing to argue.

   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1787
Unnecessary dribble removed.

« Last Edit: 2012-02-09, 23:51:37 by WaveWatcher »


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
In science, an argument is logically related to the observations.
If only faith, beliefs, and opinions are expressed in a thread, there is nothing to argue.



The thing is when experimenters made some observation and report it, men of knowledge said you see things wrong.  Knowledge has override observations.  Some of us merely give alternative theory to better fit observation, if current science able to give better logic then the audience would feel it. 

I'm not unreasonable.  I give credit when I see you have a point.  I don't fight to win, I fight to open people's heart.  Right now we're lack of free energy, but what we lack more is love.   It seems like I'm creating oppositions, but I hope more people would understand my feeling. 

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 416
In science, an argument is logically related to the observations.
If only faith, beliefs, and opinions are expressed in a thread, there is nothing to argue.
I've learned from experience that even opinions on anything can be argued.   People used to believe that, scientifically, the world was flat---and possibly arguably so.   Also, religion can be argued to the point of martyrdom.

However, Traditional Native Americans don't argue about their God, the Great Spirit, whatever it's called in their own language.

--Lee


---------------------------
"The truth comes from wisdom, and widsom comes from experience."
                   --Valdemar  Valerian
                   --from the Matrix series of books

 
"Whosoever speaks or otherwise acts, has no secrets."
                                     --Roman proverb?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1749
@exnihiloest
Quote
In science, an argument is logically related to the observations.
If only faith, beliefs, and opinions are expressed in a thread, there is nothing to argue.


I think you forgot to mention the part where mainstream science believes that basically all the fundamental forces relate directly to some magical virtual particles popping in and out of existence from some other magical universes and none of this has ever been observed let alone proven in any way, is this the kind of logic your referring to?. To err is human.

Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2012-02-11, 21:12:20 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1434
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
So what percentage is calculation compared to belief when Orville's feet left the ground for the first time.
You can not measure the exhileration of the OMG moment when reality bends to your will regardless of the calculations.
This is only known to those who make an adventure an not simply follow a rote path.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

I've got some insight for you on the often abused Wright Brothers story.  They followed a rote path.  Enlightened scientific minds in the latter part of the 19th century already knew that powered flight was possible and some of them made thousands of flights with gliders with a human pilot.  They did the calculations and they knew ahead of time that they needed a power source with a certain minimum power to weight ratio to make powered flight possible.  Then the internal combustion engine came along at the Wright Brothers adapted a disciplined engineering-style approach (a.k.a. "by rote") to create their flying machine.

It kind of turns the whole "look at the Wright Brothers as an inspiration for free energy" argument on its head, doesn't it?  It was the enlightened scientific minds that knew ahead of time that powered flight was possible, they were not the ones that were dismissing the concept.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1749
@Milehigh
Quote
It kind of turns the whole "look at the Wright Brothers as an inspiration for free energy" argument on its head, doesn't it?  It was the enlightened scientific minds that knew ahead of time that powered flight was possible, they were not the ones that were dismissing the concept.

Actually no it does not and in fact it verifies the concept of free energy. You see the Wright brothers knew powered flight was possible dispite the fact that 99% of the population believed it was not ---- just as we know as a proven fact that we are swimming in a sea of energy dispite the fact 99% of the population believes we are not, science is not a popularity contest.

Now the Wright brothers knew powered flight was possible in fact it was relatively straightforward what was required however is they needed certain technologies to come into play before they could achieve success. We know we are swimming in a sea of energy that is inherently free and this is not a subject which needs debate, we know it as a fact, however we are in the same predicament as the Wright brothers in that we know it is possible but we need certain technologies to be developed before we will be successful. As it turns one technology is already here, Nano-technology, whereby specifically engineered materials may absorb or reflect electromagnetic energy and convert it directly into usable quanities of electrical energy. As well there is a great deal of research into something I predicted damn near two decades ago, it will not be one singular region of the EM spectrum but very large portions of it. Consider a panel or laminate which transforms light, heat, all man-made RF signals as well as other natural sources of radiated EM energy directly into electrical energy and you may start to understand the magnitude of what I'm speaking of. As well these engineered materials have peculiar know properties, one is that almost no energy is reflected back outward which means the material is a natural energy sink which is exactly what one Nikola Tesla described in detail 112 years ago ("The Problem of Increasing Human Energy" June 1900). A singular region into which external energy flows and is then transformed into another form of energy in which case nothing is reflected, it is a one way transformation acting inward -- welcome to the future.

Now one can sit on their ass and pretend all space is devoid of energy and live in a world of make-believe or we can accept the proven fact that we are surrounded by all the energy we could ever need we just don't know how to convert it effeciently at this point in time. To be honest most days I have no idea what in the hell you could possibly be thinking nor why --- really, we know as a fact we are swimming in a sea of energy which is inherently free and every day new technologies get closer and closer to economically extracting this energy and to say it will never happen is just as absurd as the people who said man will never fly.

Regards
AC

« Last Edit: 2012-02-12, 19:11:30 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
Actually no it does not and in fact it verifies the concept of free energy. You see the Wright brothers knew powered flight was possible dispite the fact that 99% of the population believed it was not ---- just as we know as a proven fact that we are swimming in a sea of energy dispite the fact 99% of the population believes we are not, science is not a popularity contest.

So you are sort of implying that in both cases we are dealing with an uninformed public and therefore they are the same?  That's nonsense.  Where you are correct is that the two premises are supposed to be based on a realizable application of science.

The science behind powered flight is an established reality.

For free energy, let's look at some science angles.

1.  Science clearly states that you can't get something from nothing.  It's also common sense.

However, let's look at the "sea of energy" argument.

2.  If you are talking about the sun, for sure we can get energy from the sun.  However, that's not "free energy" and please let's not get into the whole "renewable vs. free" definition debate.

3.  If you are talking about the fact that we are in a sea of thermal energy, that's true.  That comes from the sun and from the core of the Earth.  There must be a temperature differential to exploit this as an energy source.  It can be exploited in limited amounts.   But just the fact that we live in a "sea of thermal energy" at more or less the same 293 degrees Kelvin temperature is not exploitable.

4.  Then there is the "Dirac Sea" of energy.  The property of space itself represents energy.  In one cubic centimeter of space there are gigawatts of possible power, bla bla bla.  People that play with coils fantasize that their coils are "entry points" for this energy.

As far as I am aware, there are no technologies around that can tap into the "Dirac Sea" "Wheel-work of Nature" energy.  There are a lot of free energy cons that claim they do but they are never true.

Continued in part 2.....
   
Group: Guest
Part 2......

You talk about nanotechnology absorbing EM energy and converting it into electricity.  It sounds exciting but my suspicion is that will result in more efficient solar cells and not much more than that.  There will never be a "black-body brick" that you can keep in the basement of your home that just "sucks up energy" and turns it into an unlimited supply of electrical power, that's just a fantasy.

Quote
really, we know as a fact we are swimming in a sea of energy which is inherently free and every day new technologies get closer and closer to economically extracting this energy and to say it will never happen is just as absurd as the people who said man will never fly.

I don't buy it.  We can work on extracting renewable energy and the sun is the biggie.  In 100 years it's possible to envision almost all of our electrical energy needs coming from solar.  But your "sea of energy" business outside of the solar aspect will likely never come to fruition.  It's just too pie-in-the-sky.

So I am not ruling it out completely but I view it as extremely unlikely.  Both types of fusion reactor will come online way before any "sea of energy" speculation comes true.

So when you look at it, you have solar and other renewable sources, and two different possible types of fusion reactor to replace fossil fuels and fission reactors.  What you are talking about is in the realm of Star Trek and is extremely unlikely.

In that sense the way of looking at the Wright Brothers as I stated it holds true.  The Wright Brothers built something that has a rational scientific basis for it to work.  The conventional notion of "free energy" in the parlance of the forums has no rational scientific basis for it to work.  Your "sea of energy" idea is intriguing but for the foreseeable future there is no tangible way to realize it.  In that sense it's not much different from the idea of "free energy" we see discussed on a daily basis in the forums.

Anyway, that's my take on it.  There is no connection whatsoever between something like a RomeroUK motor that is "supposed to create energy out of nothingness without any kind of rational explanation" and what the Wright Brothers did.  There are real limits to what we can do in the real world.  RomeroUK was a con that cheated.

Again, I am not saying that some amazing new technologies won't be coming along in our lifetimes.  Look at the world of semiconductors as compared to life before semiconductors.  However, semiconductors have a rational basis for working, they are no different from tubes.  You can talk to an iPhone 4s and it will do amazing things for you, it certainly would seem to be magic to someone from the 1930s.  But if you told a scientist from the 1930s that it was just a giant football-field-sized bunch of vacuum tubes hooked together doing the work they might be able to get it.

So there will be amazing things coming out in the future but they will have some kind of (as yet unknown) rational basis for them working.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1749
@Milehigh
Quote
So you are sort of implying that in both cases we are dealing with an uninformed public and therefore they are the same?  That's nonsense.  Where you are correct is that the two premises are supposed to be based on a realizable application of science.
I would say the general population did not understand the nature of the problem which is a reaccuring theme throughout history.

Quote
The science behind powered flight is an established reality.
That would depend on your understanding of it I guess, did you know that the first successful powered flight with flapping wings and full manuverability like that of a bird is in fact a very recent event. Imagine that, it was only in the last 10 years that anybody really had a clue how to engineer a powered craft that could fly just like a bird --- now tell me about all this supposed understanding we have of flight. It's funny that its' always the people who generally do not have a clue about a field of science that say all is understood while the real scientists all admit we still have a very long way to go.

Quote
1.  Science clearly states that you can't get something from nothing.  It's also common sense.
However, let's look at the "sea of energy" argument.
Hmm, and this would probably explain why science clearly states the three fundamental fields relate to magical particles popping in and out of "existence" from some other magical universes we have never observed or proven to exist in any way, it would seem you are clearly wrong.

Quote
2.  If you are talking about the sun, for sure we can get energy from the sun.  However, that's not "free energy" and please let's not get into the whole "renewable vs. free" definition debate.
It would seem you are the only one who does not seem to understand that free and renewable can be the same thing and it is an accepted definition by most professionals but apparently not by you, which is your problem not ours.

Quote
3.  If you are talking about the fact that we are in a sea of thermal energy, that's true.  That comes from the sun and from the core of the Earth.  There must be a temperature differential to exploit this as an energy source.  It can be exploited in limited amounts.   But just the fact that we live in a "sea of thermal energy" at more or less the same 293 degrees Kelvin temperature is not exploitable.
Please do not drag the concept of energy down to the primate level of heat as it is insulting to most intelligent people, I am speaking of Electro-Magnetic Energy that is the EM spectrum.

Quote
4.  Then there is the "Dirac Sea" of energy.  The property of space itself represents energy.  In one cubic centimeter of space there are gigawatts of possible power, bla bla bla.  People that play with coils fantasize that their coils are "entry points" for this energy.
Nobel Prize winners with particles accelerators and billion dollar budgets would seem to have the same fantasy so I guess they are in good company :).

Part 2

Quote
You talk about nanotechnology absorbing EM energy and converting it into electricity.  It sounds exciting but my suspicion is that will result in more efficient solar cells and not much more than that.  There will never be a "black-body brick" that you can keep in the basement of your home that just "sucks up energy" and turns it into an unlimited supply of electrical power, that's just a fantasy.
It seems obvious you do not have a clue what I'm talking about, go research nano-technology (not the wiki-BS the science journals) then come back when you think you can have something resembling an intelligent conversation.

Regards
AC


AC
« Last Edit: 2012-02-12, 22:56:58 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
Always the bad boy AC.  Let's just hope the whole world doesn't accidentally get turned into grey goop by those self-replicating nano-robots!
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1434
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
The earth is flat.
Jesus was a fake.
They called Lister an idiot when he stated to wash your hands before touching wounds.

@mh,
We now have enough statements from you to prove you are not a creative thinker.
Your proofs do not represent the possibilities.
The world is a very dark place forever, isn't it?
Anybody that steps outside the box gets slapped, don't they?
Invent something and then tell us how much you know.
Help someone lesser than you then tell how big you [were].
You condemn Rosie and yourself in the same breath.
« Last Edit: 2012-02-12, 23:36:33 by giantkiller »


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

I don't know why you would say that I am not a creative thinker.  You can still be creative while understanding that there are physical constraints that we have to live within.  You seem to be implying the opposite.

You do profess the possibilities.  I can offer a thought experiment though.  Imagine if you did your bench experiments in conjunction with a colleague like Poynt or Ion or myself.  Imagine a one-week session together.  I think that you would benefit from that experience and gain more respect for the "classical" approach.  You would learn what is happening when you "smack" coils and perhaps afterwards adopt a different terminology.  Perhaps the most profound thing for you would to be able to "see through" your experiments and clearly master them.

Take the example of that Min2oly clip.  I can see right through it.  Min2oly is lost and is seeing things that aren't there.  He thinks he is doing a teaching clip about "radiant energy" when in reality he is showing how he has bought into a story that is not true.  He has been led astray by other people.  That can be a dangerous thing as history has taught us.

It's a mistake Giantkiller to just say, "Let Rosie explore her theories."  That's a slippery slope.  This is definitely not a domain where it's "I'm OK - You're OK."  It just doesn't work like that.  Rosie is belligerently pushing for two over unity awards and as a result she got a push back.  It's just another version of the Min2oly clip.

Ultimately you want the truth to be in line with the possibilities.  You simply can't have the possibilities without factoring in the truth.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Always the bad boy AC.  Let's just hope the whole world doesn't accidentally get turned into grey goop by those self-replicating nano-robots!

Not just hope. Pray.
These ideas began decades ago. Like the laser before one was made.

Years ago they already made nano motors, and Im sure the development since is greatly advanced.

Powering them can be like rfid's. And at the scale that they might be, they can most likely run on ambient rf, cell, broadcast, etc.

Its not just fantasy my friend.

Mags

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2897
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Help someone lesser than you then tell how big you [were].
You condemn Rosie and yourself in the same breath.


What I find interesting, puzzling, and disturbing at times, is when people stand up for folks LIKE Rosemary by teaching what they feel is proper conduct. I often wonder why these people don't apply their "teachings" to ALL parties involved wherever reasonable?

hmmm  ???
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2662
Quote from: MileHigh
...

Take the example of that Min2oly clip.  I can see right through it.  Min2oly is lost and is seeing things that aren't there.  He thinks he is doing a teaching clip about "radiant energy" when in reality he is showing how he has bought into a story that is not true.  He has been led astray by other people.  That can be a dangerous thing as history has taught us.
...


I'd say that Min2Oly is misinterpreting what he's
observing on his instrumentation.

Confusing "Inductive Kickback" with "Radiant Energy"
is a very common mistake made by those who've
just begun their education.

Calling a capacitor a "Ten Joule" capacitor is somewhat
more puzzling.

He has much to learn;  and yes, his "experiment" is
the most basic implementation of a "boost converter."

While the circuit does indeed produce a "radiant"
output (radio frequency energy) he's unfortunately
chosen the wrong instruments to demonstrate its
presence.

Possibly he has been "led astray" by the influences
of others.  Incomplete understanding makes one
much more vulnerable to that sort of error.

Given time and continued study rectification may
yet occur.  He's at the beginning of what may turn
out to be a long and productive journey. 


---------------------------
"The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don't tell you what to see." - Alexandra k. Trenfor.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1434
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
@.99 and MH,
I wasn't sticking up for rosie. I am just curious why she is getting so much airplay here when nobody else seems to care about her. I surely don't. I can smell a farce really quick, whether they do too much or nothing at all.
She cant' claim a prize for running the wrong race. Can she? Prize? The amount is not worth it. The outcome is far more valuable than the small stipend offered. Besides, to get the check one would have to pop up out of the hole to claim it. This is not the sort of thing one wants to get famous for.

On my bench I have this low inductance coil with a compwave generation going on. The perplexing part is I can produce this small artifact without any trouble but have trouble tapping off of it.
Yes, the classics would be good. But I don't see anybody else producing this. So how could anybody offer help? It couples out at 90 degrees. I am in the place of putting diodes, caps, lc and rc filters and traps in place to sustain the coupled output. It is tough.
My spidey senses tells this process is important. Maybe I am alone in this because it doesn't matter. I would also like to hear from anybody else about this. Grumpy posted a couple of things to try which is what I am doing. Is everybody here working on this or do we stay in the basics when the process on my bench seems promising? I just want to know. Because if there is any other process then offer it up before class begins. Steven Mark offered all he could. That leaves involvement by the others in the videos. Are they here and do they know? The TPU is not a common place thing nor advertised correctly. If nobody can talk about it then that could get me or any else in trouble for doing this. Else it just another resonating transformer that goes into overload.

In the current coil I have run an iron wire loop between the collectors for a bias and a reader loop. The compwave generation started with 2 50ns second pulses at 100ns apart with a frequency of 14khz at 12volts into bifilar speaker cable wrap(22 turns) around a paper towel tube. The rest now is all a matter of configurations.
The iron wire loops exit the coil and then run parallel with an iron wire bundle under the copper and steel reader/bias coil. Not saying this is right. It is just another configuration to try.

Or when does class begin?
« Last Edit: 2012-02-13, 04:47:54 by giantkiller »


---------------------------
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2662
Quote from: giantkiller
...

Steven Mark offered all he could. That leaves involvement by the others in the videos. Are they here and do they know? The TPU is not a common place thing nor advertised correctly. If nobody can talk about it then that could get me or any else in trouble for doing this. Else it just another resonating transformer that goes into overload.
...


Steven Mark either did not truly know or
could not bring himself to admit the real
source of output energy from the TPU.

The true source is indeed external to the
circuitry.

There are several deep underground projects
which exploit that source.  Certain of the
"Flying Objects" also rely upon that source.

Why is it so elusive?  Tesla wrestled with this also.

It is not given to everyone...  Only a few.


---------------------------
"The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don't tell you what to see." - Alexandra k. Trenfor.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-02-28, 12:08:24