Is this evidence of COP>1 ?

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > News, Announcements, and Current Events > The Buzz > Is this evidence of COP>1 ?

2024-04-18, 04:26:48
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

« previous next »

Author Topic: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? (Read 34400 times)

Enigma	Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « on: 2015-05-05, 18:29:53 »
Group: Guest	@ Coilers. Came across this. http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/resonant.html#resonant Explanation ? E?? ------------------------ Is this evidence of COP>1 ? runaway.gif (9.07 kB, 606x431 - viewed 606 times.)

Aking.21	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #1 on: 2015-05-05, 19:18:11 »
Sr. Member Posts: 367	Any more of these kinds of cop>1 posts and folks might start taking Don Smith seriously. We can't have that.. stop it. And DON'T look at VAR whatever you do. Nothing to see there - move on. ------------------------ Is this evidence of COP>1 ? donsmith resonance.jpg (22.88 kB, 781x578 - viewed 593 times.) --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

muDped	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #2 on: 2015-05-05, 20:33:28 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	The waveform of increasing amplitude looks more like the "flywheel effect" which is characteristic of parallel resonant circuits. The circulating energy within the resonance can be several multiples of the energy applied as input in accordance with its "Q" or magnification factor. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

forest	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #3 on: 2015-05-05, 20:39:40 »
Sr. Member Posts: 462	a.king21 Can't have what ? This picture from Don's presentation is the real picture from the real book.

Aking.21	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #4 on: 2015-05-05, 20:46:42 »
Sr. Member Posts: 367	Quote from: forest on 2015-05-05, 20:39:40 a.king21 Can't have what ? This picture from Don's presentation is the real picture from the real book. I'm being sarcastic. It's an English thing. --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

lost_bro	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #5 on: 2015-05-05, 21:51:01 »
Sr. Member Posts: 281	Quote from: muDped on 2015-05-05, 20:33:28 The waveform of increasing amplitude looks more like the "flywheel effect" which is characteristic of parallel resonant circuits. The circulating energy within the resonance can be several multiples of the energy applied as input in accordance with its "Q" or magnification factor. Good day muDped Yes, quite right...........{{ in reference to; parallel resonant circuits.}} and I will add, in spite of the High 'Q' factor as the amplitude of the resonant wave increases on each successive cycle, so does the input power (primary side) necessary to sustain that progressively expanding waveform. This is precisely why 'Coilers' make use of an 'interrupt circuit' on a DRSSTC ---to limit resonant rise voltage of the bridge to some predetermined value (ie; counting the # of cycles) thereby keeping the magic smoke inside of the FETs or IGBTs. Played with that for many hours........... take care, peace lost_bro EDIT.....{{}} « Last Edit: 2015-05-06, 00:38:08 by lost_bro »

Farmhand	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #6 on: 2015-05-06, 00:31:06 »
Group: Guest	No it isn't. Evidence of C.O.P. >1 = more energy output compared to energy input by the operator, no more no less. Those of us that have experimented with resonant circuits know quite well there is no O.U. in resonance itself. On this forum C.O.P. > 1 = O.U. If it was C.O.P. > 1 then the system would need to be incorporating energy from outside the system to within it before outputting it. A wave form is not output. What you see there is a increasing amplitude due to resonant rise. Very common effect.

evolvingape	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #7 on: 2015-05-06, 18:51:37 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	POWER & CREED ------------------------ Power and Creed_v2.0.pdf (65.95 kB - downloaded 147 times.) --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

evolvingape	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #8 on: 2015-05-06, 19:41:33 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	Quote from: Farmhand on 2015-05-06, 00:31:06 On this forum C.O.P. > 1 = O.U. This statement is correct for closed thermodynamic systems, incorrect for open thermodynamic systems. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

forest	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #9 on: 2015-05-06, 19:49:26 »
Sr. Member Posts: 462	Quote from: Farmhand on 2015-05-06, 00:31:06 No it isn't. Evidence of C.O.P. >1 = more energy output compared to energy input by the operator, no more no less. Those of us that have experimented with resonant circuits know quite well there is no O.U. in resonance itself. On this forum C.O.P. > 1 = O.U. If it was C.O.P. > 1 then the system would need to be incorporating energy from outside the system to within it before outputting it. A wave form is not output. What you see there is a increasing amplitude due to resonant rise. Very common effect. Yes, this is correct. In every COP>1 siituation there is external energy source - ambient force-field. Resonant rise is possible in unloaded resonant systems when there is certain correlation between resistance inductance and capacitance of the system, shortly - when there is so called high Q-factor.

forest	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #10 on: 2015-05-06, 20:25:04 »
Sr. Member Posts: 462	Energy is always in pair like man and woman

muDped	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #11 on: 2015-05-07, 01:14:11 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: Aking.21 Here is an example of a micro chip developer who found anomalies in the laws of physics. He found that a capacitor was not a static device at all. Through experiment. Did he find "anomalies" or did he offer proof that our so-called "Laws of Physics" are in fact incomplete and still being developed? In order for "overunity" to be exploited and made manifest without fail there must be some sort of energy available for "tapping into" which can be collected or harvested by technology. Once we are aware of what that energy is we can proceed to harness it. There are some very spectacular "equipments" which have been "perfected" in the world of Black Projects with "outside help" which to casual observers would be classified as massive overunity devices. What they are capable of is near miraculous from the perspective of the technology we know. We have no explanation for how they are able to operate. But then, their source of "energy" is only available to those who are willing to "make the deal." To "sell their Soul" so to speak... Quote from: Aking.21 I can quote text books too. Text Books can be a valuable resource even in the world of Experimentation. What is presented in Text Books is subject to verification by any who are curious and are, themselves, the product of experimentation. Most Text Books are able to serve as "foundations" which stimulate thought to carry one's experiments into areas not yet explored. You know, the classic "what ifs." With the caveat that if one's expectations are not well grounded in reality then the outcome of those experiments into the shady area of "What If" may be very, very disappointing. But, edifying none the less... « Last Edit: 2015-05-07, 03:11:43 by muDped » --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Aking.21	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #12 on: 2015-05-07, 02:27:15 »
Sr. Member Posts: 367	Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015-04-27, 23:10:04 "I" is current, not inductance. I don't know why we use "I" for current in Ohm's Law but there it is. V=IR, etc. But yes, the current and voltage in the loop are much higher than the input DC current and voltage. But this is reactive power stored in a tank circuit. Some people have tried to call this "overunity in VARS", most notably the QEG promoters of "Fix The World" who somehow believe that this can be put to use. It can, but it is not "overunity" since you cannot extract power from the circuit faster than it is being replaced by the power supply, or the tank power will collapse. Just the same as pushing a child on a swing. Small pushes can build up quite high swing amplitudes and sustain those high amplitudes, but if you put a drag on the swing or try to take power out faster than you are supplying it, the amplitude will decrease or even stop swinging. This is not "apparent" voltage and current, either, it is very real, since it has electromagnetic effects and even ohmic effects, heating the caps (sometimes) significantly and the loop itself slightly. Perhaps you will be interested in this video playlist, where I illustrate this "overunity in VARs" for the benefit of the believers in the QEG. These are the videos and measurements that the PESN people accused me of faking, but there is no fakery here at all, and the circuit is known and published and anyone can build it and test it for themselves for less than 20 dollars in parts. The first video, that caused all the fuss and accusations of fakery at PESN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xuXBHJcNsk Nothing is faked, everything is just as you see it in the video. I'm making the output power measurement just as the FTW people did in their "Morocco has overunity" video, except that they used a storebought current transformer for current sensing and I used an improvised one, and neither of us made correction for any possible phase shift introduced by the current sense method itself. The rest of the playlist where power extraction, both LV and HV, is shown, and also the whole thing is explained: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa-k7J7vO_I22fVc-h8wcdLf This is an example of probably one of the best posts I have encountered. It is almost a perfect analogy to Tesla's earthquake weapon machine which caused the builders on a skyscraper to run for their lives convinced there was an earthquake. So Tesla's machine: Less than 1 watt input - millions of watts output. Back to TK's post: Now surely we can "steal a couple of watts" to make a self runner....... --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Farmhand	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #13 on: 2015-05-09, 00:40:14 »
Group: Guest	A.King who is quoting Text books ? Regardless, you say Tesla's Earthquake machine was 1 watt input and millions of watts output. And that is all well and good except power is not energy, we can all use a small input power to facilitate a large output power for a short time. But there is no valid demonstration of 1 watt continuous input with millions of watts continuous output, that's just fantasy. If you watch a pile driver at work you can see how useful storing up potential energy slowly then releasing it suddenly at much higher power actually is, it is the basis of many very useful devices but it is not OU and never was and never will be. It is a magnification of power by storing it up and releasing it at a faster rate or a higher power, same thing. Tesla even mentions a Pile driver as an analogy for the magnifying effect of his Magnifying Transmitter, if I remember correctly which he clearly stated was under unity in court. ( this can be read in the book Tesla and his work on alternating currents ). And there are no closed systems in reality, all systems dissipate energy to the environment in some way, so are not closed, some even take more energy from the environment than they dissipate, all open systems, the only real closed system is the entire Universe (all that exists). We can model systems as closed but they are not really closed unless no energy can escape or enter the system. Just plain logic tells us that energy cannot be created. It would make no sense in reality if we could create energy then that would mean we could add something to the Universe that we created from nothing, which is of course absolutely impossible and always will be. people who claim to be able to create energy are completely mad in my opinion. Plain Logic tells me no one can create something from nothing.....period.

Aking.21	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #14 on: 2015-05-09, 02:19:40 »
Sr. Member Posts: 367	Tesla : I made a mistake: it as not a skyscraper but a ten storey building. The effect is not cumulative. It is energy amplification. Here's the quote: He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one ;ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it. Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour. The device consumes probably one watt. That is one watt in one hour. The 10 storey steel building did not have: energy in = energy out. It had watt amplification. I stand by my calculations. As for Farmhand - you don't even believe that time can be slowed down, so you have a way to go in your understanding of the universe. Yes I'm quoting from a book - a book which describes an experiment. Now what is the electrical analogy of THAT building? ------------------------ Is this evidence of COP>1 ? teslaearthquakemachine2.jpg (46.04 kB, 1238x689 - viewed 465 times.) « Last Edit: 2015-05-09, 02:56:54 by Aking.21 » --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Aking.21	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #15 on: 2015-05-09, 03:01:31 »
Sr. Member Posts: 367	Tesla's own words:- It is clear that Tesla remembered the energy amplification in his earthquake experiments. He also had to be clever not to upset the religion of physics and it's fanatical worshippers. ------------------------ Is this evidence of COP>1 ? TEsla's Own Words.jpg (249.26 kB, 1002x770 - viewed 443 times.) --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

muDped	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #16 on: 2015-05-09, 05:06:01 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Mechanical Resonance can be very destructive when it absorbs sufficient energy. Modern structures are built with efficient dampening systems to prevent such destructive resonance. The Tacoma Narrows bridge was destroyed by resonance. Tacoma Narrows bridge destruction with sound. Mechanical Resonance article with links to other examples of destructive resonance. Resonance vibration Quote from: Aking.21 It is clear that Tesla remembered the energy amplification in his earthquake experiments. As FarmHand explained earlier, the energy stored within a resonant vibration will have many times the energy contained within each individual pulse of excitation or stimulation. The resonance accumulates energy and increases its peak to a very high value of stored energy. That is called the Magnification Factor. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Smudge	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #17 on: 2015-05-09, 09:54:11 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1855	Whereas in resonant systems the high energy reached is the accumulated effect of all the small input pulses (no OU!) we should also take note that a resonant circuit has the unusual ability to make an otherwise weak coupling from a distant source become a strong coupling. Anyone who has used a grid dip oscillator will know of this effect, the resonant circuit seems to suck power from the poorly coupled oscillator. Tesla used this feature in his proposed wireless power distribution. Thus if there happens to be some distant source of RF energy that you don't know about, you can be fooled into thinking you have a COP>1 system when all you are doing is suck energy from that unknown source. If that unknown source is something in nature that is there all the time, driven by the quantum background, perhaps electron precession or nuclear precession, then perhaps you could claim COP>1. Smudge

Enigma	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #18 on: 2015-05-09, 12:16:12 »
Group: Guest	@ Smudge. Smacks of TH Moray. Have you any thoughts? Aking. A mechanical approach? Could some energy be syphoned? E??

Chet K	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #19 on: 2015-05-09, 16:26:36 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4010	Smudge Quote If that unknown source is something in nature that is there all the time. ------------------------------------------ I have often felt that the proper antennae array with the proper circuit could harvest lightning with out ever actually causing a Strike . Could a ground array attach or poorly Couple to the ionosphere ?? respectfully Chet K

forest	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #20 on: 2015-05-09, 16:32:14 »
Sr. Member Posts: 462	OU is simple and you Smudge should know it perfectly. It's all about charge. Charge is ether.

Farmhand	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #21 on: 2015-05-12, 00:13:03 »
Group: Guest	OK so if the increasing amplitude wave form is OU then what does this video of an increasing waveform that I witnessed in a setup I played with say then is it OU as well ? Increasing Amplitude wave form. Video from 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjuE91-qXu0 I call this the Swordfish wave form, others call it the wine glass wave form. One thing is for sure is that it is nothing special, I know this because I can do it and I can recognize why it happens. Of course it is not. It's just resonance. But if it was OU then I can repeat it any time some one shows the claimed relationship between that kind of wave form and anomalous energy. And I think I know why it happens. It has to do with loose coupling and tuned coils for both primary and secondary. The primary takes time to transfer it's energy to the secondary and as it does that the wave form amplitude rises to the point where it fires the secondary spark gap (voltage limiter). Anyone agree ? Don't agree say why, but don't use others words use your own. In fact I'll go so far as to say that once one understands how the wave form comes to be, then it is quite simple to produce, and the reasons for it being how it is are clear. .. ------------------------ Is this evidence of COP>1 ? Swordfish WF.jpg (47.63 kB, 855x513 - viewed 355 times.)

Farmhand	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #22 on: 2015-05-12, 08:48:48 »
Group: Guest	A,King, I'm Afraid you are confused. Time is a mental construct of humans to represent the orderly motions of the Cosmos ect. Our perception of time can be altered and the recording of passing time can be altered maybe but the motions of the universe continues without any change regardless of what we do. 1 day is one revolution of the Earth. How do you claim the revolution of the Earth can be slowed down ? Any timepiece will have it's nuances, but the passing of the orderly events in the Cosmos continues. Maybe an atomic clock will run slower in orbit than on Earth. Do we know that time is passing slower or just the atomic clock ? Possibly even atomic clocks are slowing down, but nothing that we do will alter that aspect any more than we can alter the expansion of the Universe. Example 1. A man on Earth invents a time machine that can slow time down for him, only problem is the Earth does not slow and it leaves him behind in space, does he just float up in the sky and go into space falling further and further behind the Earth. Example 2, A satellite in Earths orbit is experiencing a slowing of time, and if so the Earth must leave it behind because as time passes slower for the satellite it travels less distance in the same time. I think it's relative and a problem of the timepieces and human understanding of it. See the cartoon slowing time would have much the same effect as going back in time, except slowing time would cause a gradual falling behind whereas transporting would be instantaneous. It is simply a relativity issue in my opinion. Time is not a true dimension we cannot travel in time like we can in space, like forward and back we can't even travel in time time just passes as we exist, there is a continuous passing of events and we created Time so it can be recorded and understood better what others are referring to as to when something happened. We can get along without using the word time, but it's much easier to use it. The passing of events can not be slowed but timepieces may make it appear that it does. If a satellite is put in orbit with no one on it and no timepiece on it then we could send it up and then bring it down and the time it was up there is very clear, we can record it on Earth, I would not trust a timepiece to read the same in space as it does on earth. Regardless of what the timepiece on the satellite says the satellite was in space for the time we record on Earth. Simple. Any alterations is for something other than time itself slowing down. .. Here's another though exercise, 1. The Earth is rotating on it's axis = the days. 2. The Earth is also orbiting the Sun = years 3. Now if we imagine a spacecraft that can reach 99.9% of the speed of light and is orbiting the Earth at that speed. 4. And of course as believed (but not by me) Approaching the speed of light slows time. Questions ? How can time slow down for the spacecraft while it remains in orbit together with the Earth around the Sun, and at the same rate when the Earth and the spacecraft are supposedly experiencing different "rates" of "time" ? After 1 year both the spacecraft and the earth will have completed one orbit of the Sun, so would they both not have experienced one year of Time regardless of what any timepiece says ? .. If you could get on a spacecraft and do the thought experiment for real then after 1 orbit of the Sun still 1 year will have past, regardless of how many seconds were counted wherever and with what. ------------------------ Is this evidence of COP>1 ? Why-time-travel-is-impossible-planet-shift-comic-cartoon.jpg (34.73 kB, 540x360 - viewed 262 times.) « Last Edit: 2015-05-12, 10:18:58 by Farmhand »

Allcanadian	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #23 on: 2015-05-12, 15:21:56 »
Hero Member Posts: 2624	@Farmhand Quote How can time slow down for the spacecraft while it remains in orbit together with the Earth around the Sun, and at the same rate when the Earth and the spacecraft are supposedly experiencing different "rates" of "time" ? After 1 year both the spacecraft and the earth will have completed one orbit of the Sun, so would they both not have experienced one year of Time regardless of what any timepiece says ? The problem I see is that the scientists have relied on faith in their instruments more so their personal interpretation of what they think their instruments are showing. There are actually two options, 1) time has changed or 2) the clocks have changed. It seems no one thought to think that the rate at which matter oscillates (the clock) may be effected as velocity increases due to interaction with the external field. It is strange that they believe space is empty but they also know it is full of radiation, plasma and high energy particles. I find the fact so many credible people have come to believe time is variable very strange and see them as no different than the OU crowd. They look at their instruments then see what they want to see despite the fact they do not understand what they are actually seeing. In my opinion we have a lot to learn and we need to start discarding unworkable theories such as variable space/time. AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Aking.21	Re: Is this evidence of COP>1 ? « Reply #24 on: 2015-05-12, 17:55:49 »
Sr. Member Posts: 367	I was waiting for that one Farmhand. The sat nav in your car would be way out if special relativity was not taken into account. And guess what? Einstein's maths stack up perfectly. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html So a device most of us use every time we are in a new-to-us location needs to take into account the time field. Every time you fly G P S (SAT NAV) ensures you get to your destination. http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm I stand by my previous posts. --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-04-18, 04:26:48

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2