PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-01-17, 06:52:55
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 9 10
Author Topic: Bi-toroid  (Read 124162 times)
Group: Guest
@all,
Regardless of the name or source the devices do not run down either. Ed stated the flux is always flowing. We can use that stream whether we cut it with a wire or break the connection of the field and let it collapse on a wire. Whoa! Different motions, same effect. Now what is even more TPU specific is let the field reconnect on many wires or don't move the wires but move the field.
Pretty simple...

Another example is Hutchison moves the field and the eclipse points over matter. He also changes the angle of the eclipse plane inside of matter. When these align you get a steel fork in a block of aluminum. And when the alignment disperses we are left with a melding/welding. Hmmm.

If the viewer does not take into account the field interaction then it all looks like magic or bullshit. Special smoke, probably...

Plz splain me dis? I have noticed that many arguments never take into account field / matter alignment. Y dis? Is this the key point not taught in status quo box? I refer the reader to the picture of the nuclear detonation deivice on the first page of the Spherics document. Phased and angular. It is the Hutchison type process but the tramsnitters are specially placed and driven. Hmmmm, again. Well if this process doesn't work then why all the brewhaha over detonation? What if the detoantion can be controlled from an event to a process.

Giantkiller:

I am going to rebut some of your points for two reasons.  One is to argue the technical merits of what you are saying and the other is to use this as an example of civilized debate.

For your comments about the TPU:  It is pretty simple, you are describing basic magnetic induction principles.  A transformer is a classic example of this.  So I am going to suggest to you that the challenge for any TPU builder is twofold.  They need to make measurements on power out vs. power in and demonstrate over unity.  Then they should try to reverse-engineer the device with timing diagrams and various measurements and explanations to explain how the device works.  This will be a tall challenge because everything we know about magnetic induction says that it is an under unity process obeying the law of conservation of energy.

For the alleged Hutcheson effect, be aware that many people believe that the fork inside a block of aluminum is just a prop that he made and that he manufactured a story about how it was created.  I have read several accounts where he admitted that his anti-gravity effects where just fake clips filmed upside-down in 1979.  Personally, I think Hutcheson is a con artist.  I have looked at his clips.  I don't know what you mean by "ellipse points" and "ellipse plane" I have never heard those terms before.  I am also not sure of what you mean by alignment between the field (what field?) and the ellipse plane inside of matter.  What I can tell you is almost any form of matter consists of atoms or molecules that are in a random alignment.  A block of aluminum would have molecules in random alignments and they would also be vibrating randomly.  Because of this I can't see any kind of regular alignment being achievable between some kind of external field and randomly oriented atoms or molecules.  If you are talking about a static electric field for example, then it's impossible for there to be any static electric field inside a block of aluminum.

You pose the question, "I have noticed that many arguments never take into account field / matter alignment."  Like I said above, since all matter is almost always randomly aligned the proposition is questionable in a generic sense.  What kind of field are you discussing?  I haven't read the Spherics document so I will end my comments here.

Giantkiller, I am not really asking you to answer these questions.  The stuff you are talking about doesn't fall into my area of interest.  This is more of an example of a civilized debate going over technical issues.  Certainly you notice that I can challenge you on almost every single point that you make with logical arguments and questions.  This can be a real turn-off but what I am saying is valid, I am not intentionally trying to be a "bad guy" or to be condescending.  I am not giving you a wide leeway, I am looking for real answers to things that either don't make sense to me or to things that I don't understand.

The above is an example of what this forum or any other free energy forum needs.  It needs people to propose ideas and it needs people to question those ideas without either side of the debate resorting to personal attacks.  At the same time, we can't live in PC straight-jackets and sometimes the comments about the merits or lack thereof for the proposition (not the forum individuals) can get colourful.  For example, almost nobody would argue with the statement, "Lutec in Australia are con artists that have been pitching their fake free energy machine for a decade."  This is an accepted fact in free energy circles.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
MH

Is there anything that you believe in that can not be proven?

God?  Big Bang? Creation?  Conspiracies?  Aliens?  Bigfoot?

Grumpy:

I am almost afraid to say yes to any of the concepts that you are proposing because that will give people an opportunity to jump all over me and make a connection with free energy and "trap" me in a "logical fallacy."

Let's just say that I consider myself a secular humanist.  The red-shift on all of the stars and galaxies is evidence to back up the Big Bang theory.  I know that a lot of free energy enthusiasts like to jump all over that one, including Mr. "Logical Fallacy" himself.  I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job nor were there charges placed in the towers and I have no problem with the WTC 7 collapse.  Big "maybe" on the aliens visiting us, big "yes" on life in the Universe, no on Bigfoot, big "yes" on evolution, big "no" on Biblical creation.

Big "no" on debating any of this stuff here.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-11-05, 13:47:50 by MileHigh »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1623
@Grumpy
I think that what we believe and what we call proof can be funny things which can contradict one another sometimes, I imagine if I told someone on the street that a person can grow back a thumb or finger which has been cut half way off nail and all they would get quite a chuckle. However it is a scientifically documented fact that this has happened more than a few times and there is no explanation for it. They figure it relates to neutral cells related to stem cells which can take on the characteristics of any cell in the human body and most of the experts in this field admit it is only a matter of time before we can simply grow new parts from technology related to stem cell research. Yet the question remains, why would almost all intelligent people completely refuse to believe it is possible? I would imagine just about every single person other than the actual experts in this field or the doctors who documented this fact would tell us outright, no ---- no it is impossible, but it is.
This also relates to my ufo incident, an object I could not identify travelling at impossible speeds across the sky and into space on a clear cloudless night with no rocket plume, no sound and other people present to verify what was seen. Now how does a person rationalize something like that when the impossible is staring you in the face? when there is simply no way any sane person could possibly continue to believe that the technology does not exist. This is the one point I would like to drive home, I think it is great that we have so many experts here who have a great deal of experience in a vast number of fields but being an expert does not guarantee anything when it comes to the unknown, that is why we call it the unknown.
As well I have seen too many new technologies in the science journals which seem beyond belief at first glance, one is nantenna technology where two nanowires nanometers apart extract energy from what we call heat directly. The peak and trough of waves in the near infrared region of the EM spectrum which we call "radiant heat" or "radiant energy" intersects on the nanowires inducing a potential difference across them. Now what do you think most any expert would have said to this claim five or ten years ago?  Heat is not energy, heat is a form of energy and the oscillitory motion of matter is the real energy, this motion can produce EM waves which radiate from the source (radiant energy) and induce a potential directly in conductors. It can do this because the nanowire conductor spacing is the same physical width as the 1/2 wavelength of the EM waves thus one conductor falls on a peak and another on a trough of the EM wave. This technology alone should throw what many experts thought they believed into doubt, that simple wires can extract useful amounts of energy from the ambient environment --- free energy from what would appear to almost everyone as coming from nothing but we know better than that. The question which is just begging to be asked here is if Em waves related to heat can produce useful amounts of energy through nanotechnology then what other wavelengths from "natural" sources could be extracted? Now what was that statement by Arthur.C.Clark --- "Any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to be magic"?
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: Guest
There has been some heated debate about some of Thane's comments so let's look at them:

I am factoring in the fact that Thane is in somewhat of a leadership position, and that he has been doing research in electronics and magnetism and motors for several years now.

Quote
WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY FINALLY GETS THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS THEY WILL REALIZE THAT EVERY SINGLE WIRE THAT CONDUCTS ELECTRICITY IS VIOLATING THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY “CREATING” NEW ENERGY IN THE FORM OF A MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND THE WIRE.

This is the "litmus test" statement that Thane failed.  You have to expend electrical energy to create the magnetic field around a wire and it obeys the law of conservation of energy.  This is so fundamental to the understanding of electricity that you can't just ignore this statement or give Thane some leeway.  It's simply dead wrong and that's all you can say about it.

Moving on.

Quote
THE ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE ELECTRICITY FLOWING IN A WIRE HAS TWO COMPONENTS, 1) THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY AND 2) THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY. BRAIN WASHED CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND DON’T EVEN CONSIDER THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY OR HOW IT IS MAGICALLY CREATED!

Thane is mocking science here.  To say the "energy contained in the electricity flowing in a wire" is a very awkward choice of words that would normally never be heard.  There is no "electric potential energy" in a wire, it's a nonsensical statement.  We can give Thane some leeway and interpret "magnetic potential energy" as the inductance and current flow associated with a wire.  It's still an awkward choice of words because "magnetic potential energy" is normally associated with the positional energy of magnets or electromagnets relative to each other like in a motor.  The last sentence is also also wrong, and we will leave it at that.

Quote
THIS MAGNETIC FIELD AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE BASIS FOR LENZ’S LAW OR HOW NEWTON’S THIRD LAW IS MANIFESTED IN AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEM WHICH SATISFIES THE BRAIN BLIND CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIST’S EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING UNLESS THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC ENERGY POTENTIALS ARE LOOKED AT FROM A PURELY NON-DIRECTIONAL VIEW - JUST AS PURE ENERGY POTENTIAL.

I honestly don't even know what Thane is trying to say here.

Quote
IF WE DID WE WOULD SEE THAT A MAGIC MAGNET FIELD ENERGY IS “CREATED” WHEN ELECTRICAL ENERGY FLOWS IN A CONDUCTOR AND THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY IS EQUAL TO THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY (WHICH IS THE ONLY ENERGY WE “DARE TO” MEASURE).

Science understands perfectly how a magnetic field is created around a conductor.  When he says the "magnetic potential energy is equal to the electric potential energy" I don't even know what he means.

So based on the above, my conclusion is that Thane has no credibility and his project is going to go nowhere.  I know that's harsh but that's how I feel.  His two coils that couple the "Figure8" magnetic path with the "OuterO" magnetic path create magnetic fluxes in the "OuterO" that perform self-cancellation on each other.  That makes no sense at all.  Thane argues that within the "OuterO" flux path that two separate fluxes pass by each other in the same magnetic circuit and I say that's false.  The rationale for his design, something about diverting the load-induced flux away from the primary coil also makes no sense in my opinion but I am not going to debate that here.

I don't consider Thane to be a beginner, he has been around for several years.  If anybody wants to debate the technical points be my guest.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-11-13, 16:40:05 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
Nothing to debate, as you've nailed it., however we could debate the level of Thanes's progressive megalomania.

When a inventor / researcher that really has little education in science and scientific method goes on to trash all of conventional electromagnetic scientists of the last two hundred years, one has to wonder what he's been smoking.

Quote
WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY FINALLY GETS THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS

Quote
BRAIN WASHED CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTS

Quote
BRAIN BLIND CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIST’S EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING

I take offense to him trashing the likes of Michael Faraday, Charles P. Steinmetz, Oerstead, Maxwell and others.

Why does he not express some humility and state that he stands on the shoulders of "giants" , and that because of these people's earlier discoveries he was able to advance the field.

Well probably because he has made no advancement, his BITT is painfully inefficient as transformers go or he would not have to burn up 1500 Watt primary driving transformers to light a 3 Watt bulb. He glossed over that one quickly. (pay no attention to that transformer burning up behind the curtain)

I see Thane's work as a giant leap backwards in electromagnetics born of delusional thinking.

But that's just my opinion.


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

Thanks for your comments.  I took a lot of heat for looking at what Thane said with a critical eye.  Wattsup, if you want to rebut the technical points that I made be my guest.

We have spoken recently about various issues on the free energy forums.  Another issue is that outrageous claims can be posted by people that make no sense and sometimes nobody will try to correct them or challenge them.  Thane's comments were posted on OU on October 30th and I checked and not a single contributor to that forum responded to what Thane said challenging him.  I am sure that there must have been some people there that read his statements and balked just like I did, yet nobody posted any comments.

This is a generic issue that ties directly into the intellectual honesty of a forum and the the need for healthy debate.  I don't want to be in a place that resembles North Korea.  It's like there is an unwritten code where you are not supposed to challenge other people's ideas, especially if they are outside of conventional understanding.  People need to be able to speak their minds from multiple perspectives, it's as simple as that.  It's totally unhealthy and the antithesis of open mindedness to have a forum where there is an implicit pressure to not speak if it goes against the grain.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
I see Thane's work as a giant leap backwards in electromagnetics born of delusional thinking.
But that's just my opinion.

And that is exactly my litmus test, when standard EE says stuff like "he is delusional" this means he is on the right track and one reason more that Thane should continue his works.

@MH

If you read the thread, then you read my own posts there that are self-explanatory. Why should I have to repeat them here just to please one member. The way I go about it is the way I have seen it can work with inventors. You ask questions, you point out the discrepancies, you ask for their understanding of those points and hopefully you get your point across without burning down the bridge. Thanes' present silence is simply a statement that what I did was the right way and has caused him to reflect deeper in what he is doing and how to better explain it. Hopefully again because again, we never know.

You again do not understand what we are trying to do here. You maybe think it is a good thing to have the EE inquisition jump up at every turn, but we here already know about that. Nothing new. You are not teaching us anything we do not already know. Actually in a way, this repetitive massage that you are posting from thread to thread is simply showing us a certain level of self-indulgence that can scrape on the sides of a rather looped way of thinking. Closed in on itself and not capable of seeing anything beyond what is "acceptable". And there I think lies your own personal challenge to surpass that. We never say this is it, we always say this could be it because there is a level of humility that we already know that with endless possibilities, there are endless ways to be right and wrong. You just have to be open to both sides in good measure.

Not answering Thanes' outburst is the best way to pass it because IT IS NOT IMPORTANT to the device. if you are waiting to meet the next Jesus-Christ OU-EEstar, then you guys are the ones that are delusional. We just deal with the reality of people and their own quirks and how they actually are and try to make the best of it to better understand the device. There is nothing in the way you go about your comments that spells constructive criticism. So you see, you have much to learn after all.

wattsup


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Wattsup:

In a generic sense let's say that there are two things to consider for a free energy proposition, the device and the person promoting the device.  Whether you like it or not, the two things are linked.  We are looking for the truth.

In Thane's case, unfortunately the device does not appear to work.  This is the truth based on what we have seen so far.  And unfortunately, Thane has demonstrated a lack of competence with respect to electromagnetics by his statements.  That's also the truth.

I am interested in the truth.  You seem to be so open minded that the truth doesn't seem to matter sometimes.  You never know, somebody might find something, right?  So you can spend enormous amounts of time and energy chasing after things that are impossible because you prefer to ignore what we have learned so far.  I am not stopping you, but I will comment, you don't have to take my advice.

You are not making any rebuts to the technical points about Thane's statements.  Do you have a proposition to explain how Thane's device could work?  It's Thane's deal so nobody is forcing you to answer.  By the same token yesterday you took issue with what I had to say.  So it's all laid out a few postings back if you want to argue your points.  If you can't argue any technical points then I will assume that you were just mad at my pointing out what I pointed out.

You may not think it's constructive criticism, but that's your opinion.  The flux cancellation issue is constructive criticism.  We saw on one of Thane's later clips that there was no voltage in the "OuterO" ring clearly showing the flux cancellation was taking place.  I put in real time and made a real effort by making multiple technical posts to try and figure out the the truth behind Thane's device.  That's constructive criticism.  You can't ignore it because you don't like it.  It's my attempt to find the truth, not to be an "EE Star."

I did not answer Thane's outburst, I ignored it for the most part.  I answered to his technical points and rebutted them.  Again, it's simply about trying to get to the truth.

Quote
You are not teaching us anything we do not already know.

You have got to be kidding.  Did you see the postings by Hoppy and Farrah about the woeful lack of technical knowledge on the free energy forums?  That is probably the most prevalent issue around.

On your side, in my opinion when you read between the lines, you want suppress speech that you don't like.  It's an urge that you have to try to fight.  We both know that on OU you could complain to Stefan and you could get me booted off the site.  I am arguing the technical points and taking a critical look at the statements of the inventor himself and that might upset you so one possible solution is to simply eliminate me.  It's not right and that's another failing on the forums.  There is a time and place to eliminate posters, but it should never be done for the simple expression of their ideas.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-11-13, 20:27:58 by MileHigh »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@MH

I will just answer in bold your post copied below.

Wattsup:

In a generic sense let's say that there are two things to consider for a free energy proposition, the device and the person promoting the device.  Whether you like it or not, the two things are linked.  We are looking for the truth.

One day the person will no longer be there. You will be left with the device only. Try and have a conversation with the device. Won't work. So while the person is here, it is your responsibility to maintain a form of communication that not only calls for dishing out the technical but also in using some level of psychology to keep the person engaged. Otherwise, while the person is still alive, you blew it and again are left with the device. Looking for the truth can only happen when all the details are known. With a work in progress, trying to pin it down to a few classical knowns is not right because the work is not finished. Thane never said his device was finished. And seeing his device and seeing how he explained it, it was evident he was talking about two things. Just putting that in front of him is enough to push him in the right direction to look deeper. The "truth" in that case is not even ready to be considered. In a way, you are putting the cart before the horse.

In Thane's case, unfortunately the device does not appear to work.  This is the truth based on what we have seen so far.  And unfortunately, Thane has demonstrated a lack of competence with respect to electromagnetics by his statements.  That's also the truth.

I am interested in the truth.  You seem to be so open minded that the truth doesn't seem to matter sometimes.  You never know, somebody might find something, right?  So you can spend enormous amounts of time and energy chasing after things that are impossible because you prefer to ignore what we have learned so far.  I am not stopping you, but I will comment, you don't have to take my advice.

Again, his statement about the field around a wire is not false and it is not truth. You just decided that the classical way of looking at a field around a wire is the right way, but not even the classical way can prove it. This I will cover when I am ready to post my thread on my bench so I don't want to get into it to heavily here. Suffice to say that what you consider truth is just in reality one side of the coin that has never been proven.

You are not making any rebuts to the technical points about Thane's statements.  Do you have a proposition to explain how Thane's device could work?  It's Thane's deal so nobody is forcing you to answer.  By the same token yesterday you took issue with what I had to say.  So it's all laid out a few postings back if you want to argue your points.  If you can't argue any technical points then I will assume that you were just mad at my pointing out what I pointed out.

Again this is not the time to try and make a rebuttal when you do not understand yourself the device fully. You just decided on your own that this was the time to understand so you actually try to force an issue that is not ready to be fully understood yet. It's like asking a doctor what the prognosis is before all the results are in.

You may not think it's constructive criticism, but that's your opinion.  The flux cancellation issue is constructive criticism.  We saw on one of Thane's later clips that there was no voltage in the "OuterO" ring clearly showing the flux cancellation was taking place.  I put in real time and made a real effort by making multiple technical posts to try and figure out the the truth behind Thane's device.  That's constructive criticism.  You can't ignore it because you don't like it.  It's my attempt to find the truth, not to be an "EE Star."

Thane tried to explain about the flux cancellation saying, there s no such thing as flux cancellation in the core itself and I concurred with him on that point. That's my prerogative to agree or disagree but I did continue on to explain what I think he meant about that rather extensively. The cancellation may occur in the coils but not in the core. The coils see two paths and translates the cancellation as being a normal event. The flux itself cannot see it needs to cancel. Actually I did learn something that day. I learned his way of looking at this. Now try to do a rebuttal on that. What can you say but hey, nothing in normal EE can dispel it.

I did not answer Thane's outburst, I ignored it for the most part.  I answered to his technical points and rebutted them.  Again, it's simply about trying to get to the truth.

You did not do it on his thread but you did do it on this forum.

You have got to be kidding.  Did you see the postings by Hoppy and Farrah about the woeful lack of technical knowledge on the free energy forums?  That is probably the most prevalent issue around.

Regarding Farah Day, she took a good hit at me the other day. I had prepared a rebuttal to it but what is the point. I just did not post it. I sometimes will write the post for me. In her explanation there were many mistakes so I finally decided to just let it go. Too much to cover and too much to do. Unfortunately she does not know how well versed I am in water treatment methods, including reverse electro-deionisation, electrostatic humidification, electro-coagulation nor does she know the trails I have done with hydrogen production. HHO just scares the lights out of me. Each bang just cries out "Watch out man I'm gonna burn you". So I never really pursued it.

On your side, in my opinion when you read between the lines, you want suppress speech that you don't like.  It's an urge that you have to try to fight.  We both know that on OU you could complain to Stefan and you could get me booted off the site.  I am arguing the technical points and taking a critical look at the statements of the inventor himself and that might upset you so one possible solution is to simply eliminate me.  It's not right and that's another failing on the forums.  There is a time and place to eliminate posters, but it should never be done for the simple expression of their ideas.

Wow you give me too much influence at OU when I am just another fart in the windstorm. We have been at this for some years now and have seen a myriad of persons, inventors, fakers, but mostly honest guys giving it their best try, etc. You name it we have seen it. When we do not understand an effect, we have guys like @guyulsan that join a thread to give us a more pragmatic perspective with the conventional point of view. No fighting required. Just guys that are working together to understand something. But he will never do anything in an arrogant manner trying to demean anyone and hence, he is a trusted person that you can always go to for some clarification in the classical EE viewpoints. Look there is a time and a way to say things. You have the choice about that. In my experience, the best way is the one that can get the most information out of the person or the device. For me, nothing is more important. Putting someone on the spot or deciding for them that today is a day for truth will not do it. The only thing I am trying to fight is my own ignorance while trying to stay open to all possibilities.

MileHigh

Sorry for delay in responding but there were many points to cover and as usually I re-read my post at least five times to make sure I was saying "exactly" what I wanted to get across.

Edited November 17th, 2010 - Questions removed by wattsup

EDIT: Corrected BOLD code.
« Last Edit: 2010-11-17, 05:49:41 by wattsup »


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Wattsup:

Quote
In a way, you are putting the cart before the horse.

Thane did a few clips and myself and others commented on then.  If I recall, in those clips he was already implying that his device was an over unity device.  If you post some clips on YouTube you have to deal with people commenting on your clips.  You seem to want to give me a hard time while giving Thane such a wide latitude for his really ugly comments about people.  That's a double standard.

Quote
Again, his statement about the field around a wire is not false and it is not truth. You just decided that the classical way of looking at a field around a wire is the right way, but not even the classical way can prove it.

If you compress a spring with your hand you would not deny that it takes energy to do this.  If you push a shopping cart in a food store you would not deny that it takes energy to do this.  You would think that somebody was crazy if they tried to claim otherwise.  Now switch over to an inductor, and you seemingly can't make the intellectual connection between an inductor and the spring and the shopping cart.  You want to live in a world where "everything that is classical is questionable."  You can prove it, just like you can prove that it takes energy to compress a spring or move a shopping cart.  You can try combinations of coils and circuits for the rest of your life, and you will never be able to energize an inductor without expending electrical energy to make this happen.  That's the way it is no matter what belief system you ascribe to.

Quote
Suffice to say that what you consider truth is just in reality one side of the coin that has never been proven.

No, there is only one reality for coils and capacitors, just like there is only one reality for springs and shopping carts.  It has all been proven and I have to assume that you are just making a bold statement without having opened up a physics book or sat in a classroom to go through the proof step by step.  You are trying to sound enlightened and open-minded but in fact you are closed-minded.

Quote
You just decided on your own that this was the time to understand

I gave my opinion based on what Thane showed.  You want to put constraints on me to satiate your own wish list.  You can't impose your views on anyone else.  I have 0% confidence that Thane will be successful with his ongoing developments with the Bi-toroid project.  I have no idea what his time frame is but let's say we see where he is one year from now.  I will guess by November 2011 that Thane will have dropped the project because it went nowhere.

Quote
The cancellation may occur in the coils but not in the core.

I am not going to debate the flux cancellation but I will use this opportunity to repeat a request and suggest that you pass it along to Thane:  Thane should make a timing diagram for his device showing exactly how it works.  This is standard practice and it will take the guesswork out of what he is doing.

As far as my comments go sometimes they can be harsh and I admit it but I am not intentionally trying to be nasty.  Part of that is because it can sometimes be absolutely shocking to see the claims that people make and then you contrast that with their knowledge and skill set.  In my Bedini thread I reviewed Rick Friedrich's "Bedini self-runner" clip on Google video.  That clip is shocking, absolutely shocking and I virtually puke when I think about it.  So sometimes I can be frank when I talk.  When I look at Thane's clips I see a man who appears to not really know what he is doing.  That's my opinion, like it or not.  I will dream up another analogy.  Electronics is like flying a fighter jet and some people that have seen fighter jets on TV seem to think that they can just jump into the cockpit of one and start flying it just like that.  It takes education and training to be able to fly a fighter jet.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1623
@milehigh
Quote
If you compress a spring with your hand you would not deny that it takes energy to do this.  If you push a shopping cart in a food store you would not deny that it takes energy to do this.  You would think that somebody was crazy if they tried to claim otherwise.  Now switch over to an inductor, and you seemingly can't make the intellectual connection between an inductor and the spring and the shopping cart.
I think we can all agree that an inductor is not a shopping cart nor a spring in reality, it is a basic analogy and nothing more.

Quote
You can try combinations of coils and circuits for the rest of your life, and you will never be able to energize an inductor without expending electrical energy to make this happen.  That's the way it is no matter what belief system you ascribe to.
This is nothing more than an opinion based on the fact that all properties and conditions must remain within the confines of what everyone considers normal operation, I can tell you as fact that this is not the way it is in every case.

Quote
No, there is only one reality for coils and capacitors, just like there is only one reality for springs and shopping carts.  It has all been proven and I have to assume that you are just making a bold statement without having opened up a physics book or sat in a classroom to go through the proof step by step.  You are trying to sound enlightened and open-minded but in fact you are closed-minded.
Again this is blatant speculation, science is not a religion my friend and we can prove this by the fact that science is always changing, in fact what we call coils and capacitors change drastically on the nanoscale so of course your opinion is false. If you are going to bother stating something as fact you had better do your homework, you should also take a good hard look in the mirror before accusing anyone else of being closed minded.

Quote
I gave my opinion based on what Thane showed.  You want to put constraints on me to satiate your own wish list.  You can't impose your views on anyone else.
So why are you continually imposing your opinions and views as irrefutable "fact" and "truth" on everyone else, grow up.

Quote
As far as my comments go sometimes they can be harsh and I admit it but I am not intentionally trying to be nasty.
I would suggest you review your posts where you basically call all FE researchers incompetent delusional crackpots, lol.

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: Guest
AC:

Quote
I think we can all agree that an inductor is not a shopping cart nor a spring in reality, it is a basic analogy and nothing more.

Here is where I am not getting an engineering vibe from you at all because they are essentially identical things.  I mean this literally and that's why my example applies.

Quote
This is nothing more than an opinion based on the fact that all properties and conditions must remain within the confines of what everyone considers normal operation, I can tell you as fact that this is not the way it is in every case.

In my opinion based on reading your posts, your references to the anomalies that you often state you have observed are due to either measurement errors and/or misunderstanding what you are doing and seeing.  Why don't you give us all of the data on your double-pulsing inductor experiment and we can see what's up?

Quote
science is not a religion

I agree.  Science is always evolving and in most cases new knowledge sits on top of existing knowledge.

Quote
in fact what we call coils and capacitors change drastically on the nanoscale so of course your opinion is false.

It's not an opinion AC it's fact.  All of the experiments around here are done on a macro scale.  I have never heard that coils and capacitors change drastically on a nanoscale.  Can you cite some links to support that statement?

Quote
So why are you continually imposing your opinions and views as irrefutable "fact" and "truth" on everyone else, grow up.

I am expressing my opinion, not telling anyone what to do.  That's not imposing.  If I say something is a fact and someone disagrees with that, they are welcome to debate it and they can try to prove it's not a fact.  Typically I am just referencing the facts that are part of the scientific infrastructure that we have developed over the past 150 years.  If you or anyone wants to claim those facts aren't true the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

Quote
I would suggest you review your posts where you basically call all FE researchers incompetent delusional crackpots, lol.

If you have an issue with this or any future posting, then bring it on AC and let's debate it.  We can start the clock right now.  If in a future posting I state an experimenter is incompetent then respond to that posting in the thread itself, and we can debate the facts.

And I don't call all experimenters incompetent delusional crackpots.  That's just you trying to do a negative spin on me.  I will repeat, if you have an issue with what I say, then post in the actual thread itself and we can have a debate in "forum real time."  Is that fair and acceptable to you?

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@MH's question on shout out at November 14th, 2010

(20:33:39)  MileHigh: let me describe a small setup for you
(20:33:58) MileHigh: ok, no prob, are you with me for the fun question?
(20:34:09) wattsup: Go man go
(20:34:49) MileHigh: okay you have an ideal power supply, 10 volts. Just to be sure, do you know what \"ideal\" means?
(20:35:03) wattsup: Yes no loss
(20:35:34) MileHigh: not quite, it means it can supply infinite current and still hold 10 volts. got it?
(20:35:54) wattsup: I need oneof those
(20:36:08) MileHigh: okay, now do you know what an ideal inductor is?
(20:36:56) wattsup: Again yes no loss
(20:37:26) MileHigh: yes, but the better way to say it is zeroohms DC resistance
(20:37:37) MileHigh: okay so here we go
(20:38:16) MileHigh: you connect the ideal inductor across the ideal power supply, so the question is what happens?
(20:38:33) MileHigh: that\'s it, what happens?
(20:39:34) MileHigh: any takers?
(20:41:05) MileHigh: still thinking???​?
(20:41:38) wattsup: Just got back from answering the front door
(20:41:48) MileHigh: ciool
(20:41:52) MileHigh: oop cool
(20:42:28) wattsup: Well since both are ideal, I woudl imagine you get infinite voltage output
(20:43:41) MileHigh: back too
(20:44:09) MileHigh: that\'s wrong, try again?
(20:44:23) MileHigh: anybody else?
(20:44:37) wattsup: Either that or you just shorted out the power supply
(20:44:47) MileHigh: nope
(20:45:10) MileHigh: the power supply can\'t be shorted out, it\'s an ideal power supply
(20:45:30) wattsup: Then the coil just burns out
(20:45:37) MileHigh: any attempt to short it out would cause the metal to explode
(20:45:52) MileHigh: no, ideal coil, can\'t burn out
(20:46:31) wattsup: Then the coil will do nothing
(20:46:34) MileHigh: nobidy else wants to chime in?
(20:46:59) MileHigh: not an answer, something happens, what about the current
(20:48:40) MileHigh: okay we\'re done, ask AC if you want, maybe he knows


---------------------------
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2891
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Re. the question:

The current in the inductor (and hence the magnetic field around it) begins to build.

The current and field continue to grow larger and larger (linearly) for ever and ever, until the 10V supply is turned off.

Did I win a prize?  :P

.99
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 551
Re. the question,
I would say the magnetic field would grow to the point of core saturation and pretty much stop as the current continues to grow. The center of any coil by it's nature is finite and can only hold so much magnetic field even an air core.
 But this is kind of a trick question as any coil is going to have some resistance to limit current even if the resistance is a micro-ohm.  It's very difficult to make a zero ohm inductor.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2891
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Re. the question,
I would say the magnetic field would grow to the point of core saturation and pretty much stop as the current continues to grow. The center of any coil by it's nature is finite and can only hold so much magnetic field even an air core.
 But this is kind of a trick question as any coil is going to have some resistance to limit current even if the resistance is a micro-ohm.  It's very difficult to make a zero ohm inductor.

Hi Room3327.

You've missed an important part of the question: both the 10V source and the inductor are ideal, therefore there are no limits, no saturation, and no losses. Of course these do not exist in reality, but that was the question as stated.

.99
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3543
It's turtles all the way down
The current in the inductor would approach infinity.

There would be no saturation or ohmic loss because it is an ideal inductor.

the magnetic field would also go towards infinity

the ideal power supply would have no problem delivering infinite current as it also is ideal.

at Time 0, (moment of connection to the supply) there would be zero current drawn from the power supply. (since an ideal inductor has no stray capacitance to cause a small current spike as a real world inductor would)

If the inductor were one Henry, some time later x amperes would be drawn from the supply, since the applied voltage is 10 volts.

anyone guess what x is after one time constant? After one second?


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

Quote
anyone guess what x is after one time constant?

There is no time constant because it's a "trick" question!   :D

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1793
IMO there is a problem with the spring analogy of an inductor.
The 'spring' effect is not with the inductor. This is confusing because adding energy to a spring, in a simple sense, is either stretching or compressing the spring. Since they have visual similarities some would think you are saying the inductor is stretched or compressed like the spring.

The 'spring' effect is between the magnetic force being produced due to current flow in the conductor and the counter force, or CEMF being produced due to that rising magnetic force created by the inductor current flow.

In the ideal world, the current rise in this inductor would be forever delayed as compared to the same current rise in an ideal resistor of zero Ohms.

The spring analogy describes the tension between the generated magnetic field of the inductor and the magnetic field countering that field of the inductor, not the inductor itself.

You could go on and say the inductor will move like a spring if you hit it with enough current and talk about the fields between the turns but it is all due to the same effect.

In reality, it is all plumbing. The stuff all runs downhill and payday is on Friday.

In the plumber's world the current flow of an inductor is much like the hydraulic current flow of a pipe due to an attached bladder tank. Anyone have an 'ideal' bladder tank?

Choose your own analogy.


---------------------------
"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
Wavewatcher:

An inductor and a spring are identical and I will explain why.

Imagine you hook an inductor up to a scope where one terminal is fixed at ground and you have scope probes that measure the voltage and the current going into the other terminal.  You could try different circuit configurations like this.  You could connect up a voltage source to the inductor with a series resistor and observe the time constant as the inductor energizes, or you could put a square wave into the inductor, etc.  For whatever circuit you try, you can observe the voltage and current waveforms on your scope display.

Now imagine you take a spring and fix one end to the floor.  On the other end of the spring you have probes that can measure the velocity of the free end of the spring and the force going through the spring.  These two probes output analog voltages that you can connect to a scope display, basically the same setup as for the inductor.

So, you can look at the two scope displays, one for the inductor (voltage and current) and one for the spring (velocity and force).  Now let's imagine for the sake of argument both setups run at the same frequencies.

You do all of this and you won't be able to say which scope display is for the inductor and which scope display is for the the spring.  The waveforms from both setups will be identical no matter which electrical or mechanical equivalent circuit you set up for making your observations.  The easiest example would be if you make an LC resonator for the inductor circuit. You put a charged capacitor in parallel with the inductor and watch the ring-down of the electrical tank circuit.  You attach a moving mass to the spring and watch the ring-down of the mechanical tank circuit.  The waveforms generated by the two setups will be identical.

Both setups are just showing Mother Nature in action.  Everybody with common sense knows that it takes mechanical energy to compress a spring.  You can extend that common sense to an inductor, and it takes electrical energy to energize an inductor also.  A simple form of inductor is a straight piece of wire, and it takes electrical energy to generate the magnetic field around that piece of wire.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Now let's take it one step further:

The differential equations:

For an inductor:  voltage = L di/dt

In plain English that means that the voltage across an inductor is proportional to the rate of change or current with respect to time.  If you put pure DC current through an inductor then the voltage across the inductor is zero.

Now let's look at a spring:

For a spring:  velocity = K dforce/dt

(K is the spring constant that defines how strong the spring is)

In plain English that means that the velocity of the end of a spring (other end affixed to the floor) is proportional to the change in force you apply to the spring with respect to time.  If you are pushing with a constant force, then the free end of the spring is fixed and does not move and the velocity is zero.  It's only when you chance the force that you are pushing on the spring will the end of the spring start to move with a certain velocity.

If you read the two examples above over a few times, one for an inductor and the other for a spring, and really think about it you will see that they are identical.

Now for the integral equations:

For an inductor:   i = (1/L) integral (voltage) dt

For a spring: force = (1/K)  integral (velocity) dt

For an inductor, the current flowing through the inductor is proportional to the integral of the voltage across the inductor with respect to time.

For a spring, the force flowing through the spring is proportional to the integral of the velocity of the spring with respect to time.

Same thing here, think about the two examples and if you can visualize them you will see that they are identical.

Finally, for the energy stored in an inductor and a spring:

Inductor energy = 1/2 L i-squared

Spring energy = 1/2 K force-squared

They are identical.

To quote AC:

Quote
I think we can all agree that an inductor is not a shopping cart nor a spring in reality, it is a basic analogy and nothing more.

AC, I suggest that you study this posting and the previous posting in detail.

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1793
MH,

I always appreciate your staunch adherence to the well worn books. I won't go into where I have found them lacking as that would be a pointless battle with you, as any battle with you would be ;)

Go ahead and post the math. I don't need the refresher but others may.

The fact is when you charge a spring you are storing energy in the spring. When you charge an inductor you are storing energy in magnetic fields. (yes, you can go deeper and say the energy is stored in the same forces, either way)

The spring analogy is well understood by me and any other propeller head. It cannot be understood or associated well by those using real springs in everyday work and life because they have a 'real' not 'ideal' experience with springs.

The same goes for the difference between 'proof' and 'a proof'. There is no real difference in the book definitions but the real people know the difference. 'A proof' is a solution to a model. 'Proof' is a solution to the reality you can sense with your senses.

I have no argument with you on the maths for the model. When I have an argument it is with the application of the model or the construction of that model.

When was the word 'Theory' removed from 'theory of electricity' and 'theory of magnetism'?

When I watch you try to teach someone basic physics concepts I am pleased.
The problem is you don't walk away gracefully.

My next impressions are like watching the local religious zealot try to force my neighbor to believe 'The Word' with that neighbor having no starting point for such a belief.
Why should he?
 
To the zealot it is all fact.
Others want to know where is the basis for that fact.
The offering are 'proofs' for models?
To you and I models of reality represent reality. (I hope you agree about models of reality simple representing reality and not actually being reality?)

For most things this is good enough for me, not for the majority of folks.

You can argue the spring analogy as much as you wish. It doesn't change anything. Physics books are full of such 'close-enough for the masses' analogies.

Sorry for busting in on this. I'd rather just continue watching the flurry.


---------------------------
"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
Wavewatcher:

I am not really sure what your main point is but I can make a comment or two.

Quote
The fact is when you charge a spring you are storing energy in the spring. When you charge an inductor you are storing energy in magnetic fields. (yes, you can go deeper and say the energy is stored in the same forces, either way)

The current through an inductor and the magnetic fields are basically one in the same.  To make life simple you can ignore the magnetic fields and just focus on the current itself.  The moment you say "magnetic fields" a lot of enthusiast's eyes light up in fascination because of some sort of "mysticism" associated with magnetic fields.  It doesn't have to be the case.

Quote
When I have an argument it is with the application of the model or the construction of that model.

You can split hairs on models forever if you want to.  There are the perennial questions, "Does anybody really know what electricity really is" or "What is current?"  Then there are the people that don't believe that current flows.  Whatever the case, in my opinion these are really distractions to the real goal of looking at an experiment and trying to figure out what is really and truly going on in the real world.

The importance of the spring analogy is to demystify inductors and what they are and how they work.  Inductors are just electrical springs.  They are as dead as a doornail just like springs are as dead as a doornail.  That relates back to the eternal quest to find the "right" or "magic" inductor/capacitor/whatever combination for your experiment that will produce free energy.  If some people can get over the intellectual hump, they will realize that sometimes it's a fruitless quest to try different combinations of components because you can see a "generic solution" for your experiment.  You don't have to try changing coil sizes because you realize that any size coil will not change anything.

I can think of two examples.  In the Mylow fiasco dozens and dozens of people moved magnets around on rotating platters in a fruitless quest to make a permanent magnet motor.  They agonized over the spacings and groupings of magnets.  When you look at the Rodin coil or the Rodin "star-ship" coil, it's just a funky coil with some property of inductance, that's it.  In one clip Marko Rodin casually says that his coil is a solution to the world's energy problems.  That's a complete farce.

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1793
MH,

I'll agree with almost everything in your last post. I'll disagree with variations in LRC combinations not providing anything new or interesting. I have no reason to believe these would provide excess energy.
 
Maybe you didn't get my point but you made it very well  ;D


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

Posts: 3340
tExB=qr
The fact is when you charge a spring you are storing energy in the spring. When you charge an inductor you are storing energy in magnetic fields. (yes, you can go deeper and say the energy is stored in the same forces, either way)

This is a very important point.  Just because two things can be calculated with the same form of equation, does not make them "identical".

Is current a force?  (electrons per second sounds more like velocity i.e. meters per second)

Is voltage a velocity?  (Voltage is measure of electromotive force, EMF)

(EDITS in bold)

   
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, 06:52:55