PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-01-17, 06:49:19
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
Author Topic: Bi-toroid  (Read 124160 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
First point: Thane uses parts of Bilaniuk's test results (voltage and current measurements) and labels them into his drawings.

Then he ignores Bilaniuk's Power Factor measurements and inserts his own. Bilaniuk's Power Factor measurement was 0.9 based on 1.2 mS voltage leading current or 25.9 degrees. This makes it 28.8% inductive and 71.2% resistive.

BTW, Thane's power power factor calculations are almost unintelligible on the left side of the page.

The spreadsheet I posted take Bilaniuk's measurements in their entirety as they were referenced in the patent application. That was the point of the spreadsheet, which was missed.

It shows that the power transfer efficiency is less than 100% in all cases based on his authority (Bilaniuk) that did the testing.

author=wattsup link=topic=261.msg6194#msg6194 date=1288540095]
Quote
The patented device is just that. A patent. Big deal. Anyone can get a patent on anything seemingly new in design.

As far as I know, this is a patent application, and a rather poor one at that. Except for the initial statement that the transformer can deliver in excess of 100% power transfer efficiency, there are few other claims.

author=wattsup link=topic=261.msg6194#msg6194 date=1288540095]
Quote
Still, lighting that bulb the way he did is rather incredible given the way the primary core is only lying on the inner core and not aligned with it from center core to center core. So I can only image the output potential once (or if ever) that core is aligned, but then again, with an aligned core, will the primary then consume more input juice since the primary coil will be ale to move more of the flux hence not reach a fast saturation point. Don't know. But Thane has all the elements in place to do some really nice further investigations.

Sorry that you are impressed with lighting a small bulb without knowing or even questioning how much input power is required to light that bulb.

This transformer has a very poor coupling coefficient, that speaks volumes.

 


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1623
@Poynt99
I would agree completely but the great part about all of this is that what we think has absolutely no bearing on what Thane is doing in reality in fact we could think anything we want about anything but this is not fact it is opinion. As well I think most have assumed this is like a conventional transformer but that is not what it is, this is a continuation of the work he has done with his motor system and if you did not understand what he was trying to do there you will definately not understand this. Personally I find the dynamics here really neat and perspective plays a large role where we have many people doing actual work in the field while others speculate about what must be happening. It is almost impossible to explain because most everyone here are like spectators at a football game, you are up in the bleachers and see the players and the "game" below but have no idea "why" the players do what they do and in many cases how they do it. Now consider the other perspective, I am on the field and know the other players and I know their game as we are in it together and have the same goals. We also see each other on the field and sometimes wonder what everyone in the bleachers could be thinking just as they wonder about us but there is a complete disconnect between us as they are spectators, they are not and never were in the game. Now do you think the football players on the field care what the spectators think of their game? I do not think so as the players goal is not to wonder what others think of them or their game, they have a single minded ambition and that is to win and the battle is as much with themselves as the game itself.
Personally I love this game, this field of technology, because it is an absolute rush when I get to do something that is tangible that I and most everyone else thought was impossible a week ago,lol. As well it was never the fact that I found success in anything, that is not the point, it is the fact that taking one step forward will put me in a better position to take another step forward and the faster I step the more I evolve my understanding of things. In this game it is not how many rules you know or understand it is your ability to bend the rules and seek there limitations to find success and understanding that matters. If I had to give any advice to anyone I would say, forget the rules and do your own thing in your own time, do what makes sense to you personally, be determined and follow through because most often success is found in that brief moment just before your about to give up, focus on the fundamental problem and not other effects created by other problems, love what you do.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
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: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3340
tExB=qr
The "fact" that Thane's work is "questionable" is a "fact" and not "opinion".

Reconfiguration of a core does not "negate" transformer theory or principles of operation.  Magnetic fields do not suddenly start to flow in both directions (barring eddy currents) and "add".  Cycles do not become suddenly become cumulative.
   
Group: Guest
Wattsup:

Quote
I have other ideas on what it actually is but it is not important now

Why don't you try "going classical?"  There is no need for magnetism to have an aura of mysticism surrounding it.

I think of when I recently checked out the Bedini stuff online.  Rick Friedrich claims that "a Bedini motor is outside of conventional electronics understanding" and it's possible that he actually believes what he is saying.  The truth is that he barely knows what his is doing, and he doesn't understand how a Bedini motor works.  So you are looking at a case of the blind leading the blind.  In an indirect way, I find that very frustrating.

I am getting the same feeling about Thane.  I know that's harsh but I have a rhetorical question for you to think about.  I'll use myself as an example. I read about cars and automotive maintenance in the 1970s, but I have almost no experience as a mechanic.  So here we are in 2010.  Supposing someone put a 2010 high-end 600 HP Mercedes-Benz sedan in front of me and asked me to overhaul the engine.  Just because I know how to use some tools and I know what a torque wrench is, doesn't mean I could overhaul that engine.  I would open the hood and see a motor covered with a huge network of hoses and devices.  If I was lucky, I would be able to identify a few of the hoses and devices under the hood, but that's it.  There is no way that I would be able to overhaul that engine and I would freely admit that fact.

The same thing applies to the electronics field and everything that encompasses.  I don't know why people like Rick or Thane think that they can just plunge into working with electronics circuits when their level of knowledge and experience is a parallel to my knowledge of overhauling a 2010 Mercedes-Benz engine.

If you were a professional mechanic you would know in about three minutes that I had no clue what to do with that engine.  You would easily see that I didn't even know how to properly express myself as a mechanic after listening to my first 10 sentences.  If you saw me plunge into the engine overhaul anyways, you would know that I wouldn't stand a chance of doing the job.

Now just shift perspectives and now you understand how I view Rick and Thane.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Going back to his strange transformer setup.  There is nothing to guess about with respect to how it works and what it does.  It could be put on the bench and analyzed inside-out, just like a Bedini motor could be analyzed inside-out.  If you came across something that you weren't expecting, then further analysis would explain it, and the explanation would be conventional.  To merge the two analogies, Thane is just spinning his wheels.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
do what makes sense to you personally, be determined and follow through because most often success is found in that brief moment just before your about to give up

This is the fourth request to see your inductor circuit that does the double-pulses.  Can you post it and show us your data?

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@MH

I don't know why you keep insisting that @AC put something up. I think as a grown adult, he will know if this is appropriate or not. Asking guys to pull out stuff from their boondocks is rather unsavory. We may as well all shut up and go home if everything we stipulate has to be then supported with some old build (or whatever is left of it) that has to be dusted off and re-deployed, and for the person doing it may think it is another waste of time and energy.

As for your statement ""Why don't you try "going classical?"  There is no need for magnetism to have an aura of mysticism surrounding it.""

Man, there is a whole load of mysticism already surrounding the classical method. I don't need to add to that. Question: You see all the skepticism deployed to OU devices. So why not use that same level of skepticism to the classical. After all, even the classical is discussing effects and giving explanations with rather arrogant certitude. You just have to got to EE 101 and it smacks you in the face right away. Seems like EE preaching with students asked to just "believe it - have faith", look the measurement cannot lie, ha, ha, but does it show what you think it shows?

@ION

If Thane realized that his patent method was the way to go, he would not have built his BITT. I suggest you just put that aside for now. A patent is only a patent and means nothing until a device is made and working. His patent shows some general principles of what he is doing today at a more extended level. People move on. This may be a good thing to do also. I would rather dwell on the present with the guy being alive and here, then to waste this present time on past works. There is no point to that. Let's just deal with what is at the present in front of us and try to learn from that.



---------------------------
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1793
So give the guy some credit.

He does deserve some credit. To his credit he doesn't seem to give up, has been at this for a long time, reportedly gave up quite a bit to do the work, and more?

The best way I can add to his work is to limit my opinions of what I've seen.

ION,

Yes, your spreadsheet points are obvious to me - after 4 hours of sleep in the last three days due to work and waiting hours in an emergency room (more than once).

Life kind of continues past you regardless of your problems. Doesn't it?



---------------------------
"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
Wattsup:

I asked for a second and last time and others have asked also.  AC's claim is that classical electronics theory is full of holes and exceptions.  He claims that he did a simple experiment that demonstrates a non-standard inductor behaviour.  So the desire is to investigate this to try to get to the truth of the matter.  That would be a worthwhile exercise.

Quote
Seems like EE preaching with students asked to just "believe it - have faith", look the measurement cannot lie, ha, ha, but does it show what you think it shows?

You are completely wrong here.  Just about everything that you learn is taught from scratch, there is a logical basis for everything.  Simpler things build up upon each other so that the advanced topics sit on top of the simpler building blocks.

If I say to you an inductor is like a spring and a transformer is like a transmission does that analogy make sense to you?  I don't want to put words in your mouth but for the sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't make any sense to you.  You look at a spring and you know intuitively that a spring is not a source of energy.  Then you look at an inductor and perhaps you think that there is a possibility that it can be a source of free energy or harvest existing energy from some unknown source.  Well, then let's suppose that you do come to see how an inductor is exactly like a spring.  If you know a spring is not a source of free energy then it can become clearer how an inductor is not a source of free energy.

Anyway, there is room for healthy debate around here.  I don't ascribe to the thought process that says let every idea be proposed and give the author of that idea free reign and a wide latitude.  If you have an idea, great, but you have to be prepared to debate that idea and be challenged.  The desire is to separate the seed from the chaff.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
AC is not responding to the requests to see his setup and waveforms for his inductive discharge test.  Let's review what he said:

Quote
Now let's consider "normal operation", we close a switch to charge an inductance with current, we see a voltage rise on our oscilloscope connected across the inductance which then levels off indicating the current has stabilized, we open the switch and see a voltage spike (an inductive discharge) proportional to the resistance to the discharge. This is normal operation which is equivalent in a mechanical sense to a water ram pump, we have increased voltage at the expense of current and the energy remains constant.

Now let's consider abnormal operation that is what you do not know, if we consider that the current input to the inductance is solely responsible for the inductive discharge or voltage spike then they must always be proportional to one another and there can be no exceptions but this is not the case. I built many circuits to specifically test one exception to the rule whereby I could produce an inductive discharge, a voltage spike, on both the "make" and "break" of the circuit switch.

Both inductive discharges (two) would induced a voltage in nearby coils and would also be indicated on all measuring devices. Now if the inductive discharge is solely a product of the disruption of a current already established in an inductance then how can I produce another inductive discharge before any current whatsoever has started to flow in the same inductance? It should be noted that both inductive discharges were in fact equal in every sense of the word which still leaves us with this nagging question of how an inductive discharge can occur "before" a current has been established, in fact before any current of any sort is flowing in the inductance? Now if as many believe, the input must be equal to the output then why do I get two equal outputs from only one input?

I cannot comment directly on AC's experiment.  However, let me just outline a possible scenario for how you could observe what appears to be two inductive discharges.

Most people have probably seen standard bench power supplies that have a 10-turn knob for the voltage and a 10-turn knob for the current.  They typically have voltage and current meter displays also.  It's somewhat mysterious to see the two knobs on these types of power supplies.  The reason for this is that you can operate these power supplies as a voltage source (current turned up to max and variable voltage adjustment - low output impedance) or as a current source (voltage turned up to the max and variable current adjustment - high output impedance).

Now if you loose track of where the current and voltage adjustment knobs are then the bench power supply might fall somewhere between a current source and a voltage source.  In other words it's output impedance will be somewhere between low and high.

Under these conditions when you connect the bench power supply to an inductor you will see a voltage spike when you connect up the coil and a voltage spike when you disconnect the coil.  The first voltage spike would be associated with the inductor energizing and the second voltage spike would be associated with the inductor de-energizing.

This is what AC described seeing in his test.  This would be normal behaviour for the inductor.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1623
@milehigh
Quote
Under these conditions when you connect the bench power supply to an inductor you will see a voltage spike when you connect up the coil and a voltage spike when you disconnect the coil.  The first voltage spike would be associated with the inductor energizing and the second voltage spike would be associated with the inductor de-energizing.

This is what AC described seeing in his test.  This would be normal behaviour for the inductor.

That is a good example of why I do not use power supplies, I have made a few mind you but I would never trust one as far as I could throw it. As well they are unreliable, I remember when running one circuit at relatively low voltages and I could hear loud and quite sharp cracking noises eminating from within my oscilloscope but my scope leads were not connected to anything and were about two feet away from the circuit, now imagine what this would do to a power supply connected to the circuit. If you want to run conventional circuits at low power levels I imagine they would be fine but I never found these kinds of circuits all that interesting, my research is mainly Tesla disruptive circuits.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
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: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3447
HHMMmmm.........
If this was a game of Chess,

That would be  CHECK!!

Chet
   
Group: Guest
Chet:

It's not a game of chess.  The question of AC's reported experiment remains unresolved and that how it will likely remain.  AC's comments had nothing to do with his experiment.

AC:

I am mystified by your tangential comments.  Going back to your inductor experiment, in all likelihood your reported anomaly was due to a simple oversight or some misunderstanding.

You and Grumpy have commented many times on all of the irregularities associated with EM theory.  It's my firm belief that if they could be examined on a case by case basis they could all be explained with conventional EM theory.  EM theory is very solid and it's what makes the world go round.

Keep in mind that we are all still looking for free energy.  Every now and again the question is posed on the forums in a straight and direct manner.  For all of the talk and the playing and doodling with electronics and motors, when push comes to shove not a single person on all three forums has even come close to the point where they could make an LED light up for a fraction of a second with a free energy device.

Not a single joule of free energy has ever been created yet despite the hundreds of man-years of experimentation that has been done by all of the forum participants. 

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
Chet:

Not a single joule of free energy has ever been created yet despite the hundreds of man-years of experimentation that has been done by all of the forum participants.  

MileHigh

I have to totally agree, despite all the rhetoric and religious faith on forums.

I have voiced this same observation in the past, only to be tarred and feathered for this viewpoint.

But this point of view came with a price of 30 years intensively researching the field, and retiring early from a rather lucrative engineering position to further pursue the tale of the elusive "Holy Grail" of physics, so I have paid some dues in this regard.

I am further annoyed by those who are so ready to trash the foundations and whole body of electrical engineering and all the work done by all the brilliant scientist that have made the physics breakthroughs over the last 100 years or so.

Yet they type their trash remarks on computers and wireless networks not possible without these breakthroughs.

All the while glorifying Tesla as the only true god of electrical energy. Nevermind a thousand others that could be named....Stienmetz, Farnsworth, Blumlein, DuMont, Faraday, Josephson, Osaki, Zener, Oersted, Ohm, and on and on.....

Alternate energy sources will probably be built upon the body of existing engineering and scientific knowledge, coupled with a few new insights into the workings of matter and energy.

The views of those who would trash existing engineering is most likely a knee jerk psychological reaction, based upon a real lack of understanding of said subject. The "Lone wolf" or "Lone Inventor" syndrome, typified by a person who is going to "Save the world" with his little coil and flashing LED, coupled with very little practical engineering education. That's what I observe in a nutshell on forums.

Then there are the sideline cheerleaders, all too ready with bucket of tar and brush ready to pick apart any really grounded engineering facts with obtuse argument.

I am interested in AC's inductor claims because I did a lot of research in this area and can explain what may be happening in simple engineering principles, no mystique. But since AC has not been forthcoming with simple schematic , test procedure or explanation, this subject will fade away, and AC and others will be able to drop more non-provable rhetoric onto the forum.

End of Rant
« Last Edit: 2010-11-03, 12:36:07 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3447
Stop!!
You Know we don't know everything about everything!

Being here at this time in our planets history, specifically when the bonds of language are being lifted[the internet]
I would have to say You fellows [and one Gal] are some very intuitive Peeps!!
And when you see it!! you Guys will know!!
Not wasted life Bud!!

You Just Know!!
Its only the begining!!

We don't know it all.

I hope we never do!!

You guys are just Great people!!
Chet
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3340
tExB=qr
I have not trashed the "foundation" of electromagnetics or electrodynamics or physics.  I happen to dissagree with particular portions of each.

Tesla was a great man, but I never put him on the pedastal of a GOD.  I also have never agreed with his approach to electrical transmission.  Why send it from palce to place when it is already there?  there are many other scientist that were equally or more important to modern technology than Tesla.  For example, Roentgen is only remembered for "X-rays", but he did far more important work.  Henry is almost forgotten. Eichenwald, Wilson, Rowland, and Nipher are mostly forgotten.

EM anomolies:

1. Peter has documented his "explosion" sounds from his coil.  Explain this if you can.  This is documented on his bench.

2. Joseph Henry performed an experiment that showed that electrical energy flows equally from each side fo the circuit to the middle of the circuit.  I'll find this and post it.  I would appreciate an explanation of why this occurs.

3.  The TPU remains unexplained and I have not heard a good argument concerning how it could have been faked.

more later...
   
Group: Guest
Chet:

It would be nice if we found free energy but it hasn't been done yet.  In all likelihood it will never happen.  At the same time legitimate and conventional renewable and alternative energy systems will become more and more important as time goes on.  Perhaps one day parts of the US Midwest will become a giant solar array that supplies power to the rest of the country.

We might not know it all but we know much more than the typical free energy experimenter knows or can possibly conceive of.  For all of the Tesla worship that you read about, I am willing to bet that the average free energy experimenter does not realize that everything that Tesla did was 100% conventional.  All of his work with coils and radio transmission is fully explainable with conventional EM theory and he did nothing out of the ordinary.

One can always hope for a breakthrough, you never know.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Tesla was a great man, but I never put him on the pedastal of a GOD.  I also have never agreed with his approach to electrical transmission.  Why send it from palce to place when it is already there?

EM anomolies:

1. Peter has documented his "explosion" sounds from his coil.  Explain this if you can.  This is documented on his bench.

2. Joseph Henry performed an experiment that showed that electrical energy flows equally from each side fo the circuit to the middle of the circuit.  I'll find this and post it.  I would appreciate an explanation of why this occurs.

3.  The TPU remains unexplained and I have not heard a good argument concerning how it could have been faked.

more later...

Grumpy:

What do you mean when you say "it is already there?"  Electrical transmission is needed to move power from point A where it is produced to point B where it is needed.  You don't agree with Tesla's approach to electrical transmission using alternating current?  Why is that?

For your EM anomalies:

1.  I didn't follow that thread.  What I can say is that two wires carrying current will experience a mechanical force between them.  Was everyone in the thread aware of that?  That's why transformers hum.  So hearing sounds emanating from an excited coil doesn't surprise me.

2.  Looking forward to your posting.

3.  I don't really follow any TPU threads.  I can only speculate that it's based on some sort of a misunderstanding.  I have said it before, there is no way that you can get excess energy from any kind of transformer configuration.  The request was put out to Thane to make a timing diagram for his device and the same request could apply to any TPU device.  Either develop a design on paper including a timing diagram or make measurements on your device to produce a timing diagram that shows precisely when and how excess energy is produced.  You never see this kind of information and it's frustrating.

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
I have not trashed the "foundation" of electromagnetics or electrodynamics or physics.  I happen to dissagree with particular portions of each.

Tesla was a great man, but I never put him on the pedastal of a GOD.  I also have never agreed with his approach to electrical transmission.  Why send it from palce to place when it is already there?  there are many other scientist that were equally or more important to modern technology than Tesla.  For example, Roentgen is only remembered for "X-rays", but he did far more important work.  Henry is almost forgotten. Eichenwald, Wilson, Rowland, and Nipher are mostly forgotten.

EM anomolies:

1. Peter has documented his "explosion" sounds from his coil.  Explain this if you can.  This is documented on his bench.

2. Joseph Henry performed an experiment that showed that electrical energy flows equally from each side fo the circuit to the middle of the circuit.  I'll find this and post it.  I would appreciate an explanation of why this occurs.

3.  The TPU remains unexplained and I have not heard a good argument concerning how it could have been faked.

more later...

Grumpy:

I hope you did not take my rant personally, it was not aimed at you, rather a generalization of the FE archetypes.

Of the three points you mentioned, they are certainly worthy of further exploration.

Of all the devices I have studied, the TPU remains the largest enigma. To date, no one has been able to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the LTPU (SM17) could be faked (at least to my satisfaction. Faking the smaller devices was dead simple if it occurred at all.

The TPU was the singular device that jarred my questioning mind which had gone to a state of apathy from the endless stream of nonsense issuing from the FE community.

I agree with MH, that no arrangement of transformers or coils alone can produce an overunity condition, with one exception, namely if that arrangement can pull energy from "somewhere else".

But this is not the claim of the BITT, rather Thane claims that it "will force us to rewrite the laws of electromagnetics as we know them". I rather doubt that claim, as I have heard that exact rhetoric regarding Joe Newman and his device 25 years ago. Where is it today?

We have been given a possible clue as to the "somewhere else" regarding energy input of the TPU, but seem to forget it. Hint: A device which if tuned too closely to optimum would result in a possible lightning discharge.

Consider the amount of charge in the earth / ionosphere "capacitor". This is constantly replenished by the sun and represents half a million coulombs.

MH:

I am in nearly complete agreement with most of your observations and comments. I am disappointed that you will not consider a discussion of one singular enigmatic device, namely the LTPU (SM17)

I would be grateful for you to review the videos and to entertain a gentlemans debate as to how the LTPU might have been faked in the videos. Not the smaller devices, which could easily have been faked. Possibly in another thread.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Ion:

If you can give me some links for the LTPU (SM17) I will try to look.  Sorry I don't mean to be lazy but I get the feeling that there are many TPU variations, so I am not sure where to look.

Thanks,

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
Ion:

If you can give me some links for the LTPU (SM17) I will try to look.  Sorry I don't mean to be lazy but I get the feeling that there are many TPU variations, so I am not sure where to look.

Thanks,

MileHigh

Thank you for agreeing to take a look. I will post a few of the better clips here, but they are by no means the best. Anyone who can help out, feel free. There are some better quality clips out there, but do not confuse a lot of the TPU nonsense stuff on Youtube as it is not related.

for starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq1lhuBFmDI

Also look into the life of Dr. Roland Schinzinger and the tests he ran at his lab at UCI. I will try to supply them.

This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk&feature=related      demonstrates no OU effects in that no power output is shown, only 25 watts claimed so it is proof of nothing. It is however an early device worthy of note.  From the inventor's demeanor, one cannot detect any hint of "hucksterism".

Thanks again MH

POYNT: perhaps all this should be moved to a new thread e.g LTPU: Was It Real
« Last Edit: 2010-11-03, 15:59:01 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3340
tExB=qr
Grumpy:

What do you mean when you say "it is already there?"  Electrical transmission is needed to move power from point A where it is produced to point B where it is needed.  You don't agree with Tesla's approach to electrical transmission using alternating current?  Why is that?

For your EM anomalies:

1.  I didn't follow that thread.  What I can say is that two wires carrying current will experience a mechanical force between them.  Was everyone in the thread aware of that?  That's why transformers hum.  So hearing sounds emanating from an excited coil doesn't surprise me.

2.  Looking forward to your posting.

3.  I don't really follow any TPU threads.  I can only speculate that it's based on some sort of a misunderstanding.  I have said it before, there is no way that you can get excess energy from any kind of transformer configuration.  The request was put out to Thane to make a timing diagram for his device and the same request could apply to any TPU device.  Either develop a design on paper including a timing diagram or make measurements on your device to produce a timing diagram that shows precisely when and how excess energy is produced.  You never see this kind of information and it's frustrating.

MileHigh


(Sorry for the long reply.)

I agree with the AC approach, but no the "transmission throught natural media" using a transmitter and reciever approach.

The "energy" can be viewed as being in the space around us as well as within the conductor we wish to induce EMF in.  In the case of the conductor, the "energy" is already there: the ions/electrons and other constiuents that make up the mass of the conductor.  However, this is "potential" energy and not "kinetic".  If we could find a way to make the ions/electrons move, then we have electricity in the conductor.

If you are familiar with Physicist Paul Dirac, then you know he postulated the existence of a sea of virtual particles which makes up the vacuum, or space throughout the universe.  These are not all that interesting since they pop in and back out of existence and it takes a lot of energy to convert them into physical pairs (see pair production).  They were termed to be "virtual" so as not to violate energy conservation.  However, virtual or not, these particles "spin" and have spin angular momentum.  

If you could find a way to couple the "spin" of the virtual particles to the ions/electrons, you may be able to get them to move in an orderly fashion.  Harold Aspden proposed a way to do this that involved impulse charging a concentric capacitor.  It had to be concentric or the aether would not rotate as an aggregate.  His analysis showed that 100kW could potentially be obtained from a capacitor of a few pF.  This is similar to the Roentgen Current experiments, is the basis of my next Kapanadze replication attempt, and I believe involved in the operation of the TPU.


1. This isn't an ordinary sound from a coil.  Listen to Peter's videos.  I had much louder explosion, but have not been able to reproduce the effect.

2.  Correction.  It was Wheatstone not Henry.  See attached: Wheatstone_3-gap_Experiment.PNG

3.  The TPU is not a transformer of any form.  This was expressed explicitly by the inventer, Steven Mark.  He said it is a "conversion device".  "Spherics" came forward and presented an explanation of how the TPU works and offered other designs.

   
Group: Guest
Ion:

In the first clip with the long table, I don't think that you ever see under the table.  Perhaps some small-gauge high-voltage wires are routed to the table that can't be picked up by the camera.  Underneath the table there is a step-down transformer.  Then power is routed to the device and the light bulbs with flat wires passing through the seams between the leaves of the table.  Alternatively, a few 12-volt lead-acid batteries and a simple buck-boost transformer could have been hidden underneath the table, and the power routed to the light bulbs like that.  Note the video quality is VHS and I think the Steven Mark clips are from the early Nineties.

For me a big clue that it is fake is when he mentions that it's hard to get very high voltage batteries to light the light bulbs.  You simply don't need high voltage batteries.

For the second clip, you can't help but notice that the device is sitting on top of a big piece of equipment.  There could be a coil hidden inside that piece of equipment to create an AC magnetic field that is picked up by the device.  The magnet trick could be done by someone flipping a switch off-camera to switch the hidden coil on and off.

For each clip I could easily rattle off a list of a dozen or more points illustrating how they can be faked.  I just don't believe in anything associated with Steven Mark from what I have seen.

I haven't had a chance to look at the documents yet.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

The Tesla bit about broadcasting power throughout the world so people could hang antennas on the roofs of their houses is pure mythology that has taken on a life of its own.  So I fully agree with you there.

There are three questions that you can ask any rabid Tesla fanatic about that:  1)  Where do you get all of the power to pump into the tower?  Do you have 500 oil and coal and nuke electrical generating super-plants in the vicinity to supply power to the tower in the first place?  2) What about the fact that the vast majority of the power will not be picked up by the antennas?  What about efficiency?  3)  What about the environmental effects and do you think that people will want to live their lives permanently bathed in some form of strong EM radiation from the tower?

The whole idea is completely and utterly ridiculous.  From what I gather Tesla wanted to use the tower for telecommunications purposes, not to power the world.

For the sound coming from the coil, I can't say much more.  You are subjectively saying that the sound is "not ordinary."  What makes a sound "ordinary" vs. "not ordinary?"  I will keep assuming that you are getting speaker-like effects from the coil just like the Rodin coil enthusiasts point out.

You talk about the Dirac sea of particles.  I haven't read about it in detail myself, but over the years I have picked up on the concept while watching PBS documentaries on experimental physics and stuff like that.  I don't know anything about Harold Aspen except to ask the perennial question about his device and why isn't it being used to produce free energy right now as we speak.  You don't have to answer!

When you and others talk aether I don't get it.  I am under the impression that it can't be measured but rather only speculated about.  When the day comes that someone can point to something tangible about aether I will be listening.

I have heard the term "spherics" a few times before but have never heard the term used outside of the free energy realm.

For the Henry experiment, it's not too clear for me from the description.  You have to remember that the document is from the 19th century, before they understood characteristic impedance and transmission lines.

Anyway Grumpy I am not looking for a fight here, I am just telling you what I feel.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3340
tExB=qr

For the sound coming from the coil, I can't say much more.  You are subjectively saying that the sound is "not ordinary."  What makes a sound "ordinary" vs. "not ordinary?"  I will keep assuming that you are getting speaker-like effects from the coil just like the Rodin coil enthusiasts point out.

You talk about the Dirac sea of particles.  I haven't read about it in detail myself, but over the years I have picked up on the concept while watching PBS documentaries on experimental physics and stuff like that.  I don't know anything about Harold Aspen except to ask the perennial question about his device and why isn't it being used to produce free energy right now as we speak.  You don't have to answer!

When you and others talk aether I don't get it.  I am under the impression that it can't be measured but rather only speculated about.  When the day comes that someone can point to something tangible about aether I will be listening.


I used a 10kv pulser when I had my "explosion sounds".  They were deafening.  Like a rifle crack.  No flash and nothing moved - weird....

Aspden's device was conceptual, may have been incomplete, he had a stroke.  As far as I know, no one has actually tried to build it.  The basic design is a tube within a tube, and you apply a pulse of a set voltage, then see if you get more voltage out than you applied.  His analysis says you will and he explains why.  I have encountered some strange overcharging effects with coax delay lines on my pulsers, but I had not explored them as they are just a curiosity.  Charging a capacitor with double the energy that you supply would be nice, but we need a lot more gain than that to replace oil.  2 x 0 is still 0.

Aether has been detected and measured.  I'll find the reference.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
Ion:

In the first clip with the long table, I don't think that you ever see under the table.  Perhaps some small-gauge high-voltage wires are routed to the table that can't be picked up by the camera.  Underneath the table there is a step-down transformer.  Then power is routed to the device and the light bulbs with flat wires passing through the seams between the leaves of the table.  Alternatively, a few 12-volt lead-acid batteries and a simple buck-boost transformer could have been hidden underneath the table, and the power routed to the light bulbs like that.  Note the video quality is VHS and I think the Steven Mark clips are from the early Nineties.

For me a big clue that it is fake is when he mentions that it's hard to get very high voltage batteries to light the light bulbs.  You simply don't need high voltage batteries.

For the second clip, you can't help but notice that the device is sitting on top of a big piece of equipment.  There could be a coil hidden inside that piece of equipment to create an AC magnetic field that is picked up by the device.  The magnet trick could be done by someone flipping a switch off-camera to switch the hidden coil on and off.

For each clip I could easily rattle off a list of a dozen or more points illustrating how they can be faked.  I just don't believe in anything associated with Steven Mark from what I have seen.

I haven't had a chance to look at the documents yet.

MileHigh

Your first critique is very typical and to be expected from having seen that one video. There is another video I am trying to find that shows quite a number of people standing around that very same table including Prof. Schinzinger with some magnetic field measuring instruments.

Dr. Schinzinger is no dummy when it comes to electrical engineering and I don't think he would have been easily fooled by some thin wires leading to the unit in question. Besides that, the unit was moved around quite a bit and in another video is seen atop some table leaves so that people could see under the device and could move the device as far as they liked to experience the "washboard effect" of moving it through the air.

Dr. Schinzinger wrote this letter to Steven Mark after first witnessing the test with 5 or 6 others around that table, which by the way had a solid glass top.

Here is a letter:

Quote
Roland Schinzinger
Ph.D.
29 Gilman St. Irvine, CA 92715-2703, Phone & FAX: (714) 786-7691
 
Dear Steven,
 
Thank you for your kind words of sympathy regarding my loss. We both share similar feelings.
 
In your letter you asked my opinion:  I think it is a miracle that your device works. Exactly how it converts energy is elusive to both of us at this time. That does not mean we shouldn't apply ourselves to know for sure. My offer to work with you still stands. I understand your difficulties with the gentlemen you work for and I will not take your decision personally. I will be glad to talk to you and help you all I can. My offer to work on the project was made with the greatest respect and not as some kind of justification to the Foremost Corporation. I told them that from what I could see of your units they did supply substantial amounts of both voltage and current. I told them I could not give any indication of the value of the discovery without knowing more about it. I did recommend that they invest necessary funds to continue working on the discovery and that I was interested in working with you. That is about all I said to them on the subject. Anything you may have heard to the contrary is not true.
 
To further our discussion, the reason you can not use small transformers within or at close proximity to your unit is because of the leakage fields of magnetic flux. They induce currents into nearby circuitry and most likely cause frequency changes in the operating point of the control unit. Remember when you inject even a small frequency component into sensitive frequency dependant equipment you can have a disaster. That is exactly what I believe is occurring when you try to use a transformer close to your units.  There will be all kinds of harmonics present within this field extending past the radio frequency range. If I were to compare the two I would say that toroidal transformers would be more susceptible. This may be contrary to common thought. Toroidal transformers have all their flux aligned with the grain of the steel used in them. This is the reason for their reduced size as compared with E I cores. When operated at higher flux density you can permit a smaller core. Toroids will always saturate quickly, however, E I transformers ramp up to saturation levels slowly. If anything, I would suggest you work with E I rather then Toroids. In either case I believe you will find that you will have to place the inverter well outside the collector coils.
 
You may also leave a message for me at my office at the University of California Irvine.
 
Sincerely,
 
Roland

In the beginning, I was much like yourself, questioning and bringing up all kinds of arguments of how it might have been faked, and believe me we got very deeply into this whole subject, with me playing devils advocate. I did this to lend some due diligence to the matter without diving in head first.

 Forget the second clip, it is for curiosity only. That large piece of equipment is a Sony high end VCR, and yes that same argument has been brought up many times, as well as trick photography etc.  

Sorry that you are bowing out so quickly, without even considering that others of us that are also fairly intelligent have fashioned similar arguments, yet not succeeded connecting all the dots in this case.

Believe me when I say we have just scratched the surface.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-01-17, 06:49:19