PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-01-18, 10:12:01
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
Author Topic: Dally, Shark & Ruslan workbench  (Read 84026 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
"Nouns and verbs and adjectives", save your breath. You are lecturing the wrong guy, buddy.   
It's never too late to learn the grammar of your native language.

Remember how this started - see your own quote below.
Next time you make a point and complain that all of us have missed it, consider that we are keeping quiet for another reason.

The Important point that you all seemed to have missed was about showing and proving that the Kacher/Grenade interaction, is actually an interaction, not just an addition.
I kept quiet about it, not because I missed it but because I disagreed with the identification of the interacting components and did not want to elicit a flame war with you, knowing how tenaciously you cling to preconceived notions.  But you're asking for it, so there you go....
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352
It's never too late to learn the grammar of your native language.

Remember how this started - see your own quote below.
Next time you make a point and complain that all of us have missed it, consider that we are keeping quiet for another reason.
I kept quiet about it, not because I missed it but because I disagreed with the identification of the interacting components and did not want to elicit a flame war with you, knowing how tenaciously you cling to preconceived notions.  But you're asking for it, so there you go....

   

   Native language, what is my native language? Another guess? My complaints? Just to your points of view.
   It's also good to try to be a nice guy, instead of just trying knock down most everything that I say. With no knowledge of FE, nor self running, prof.
   IF you think that my statements about what you may have missed, are false. Prove it... I am asking for it.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Prove it... I am asking you for it.
We've been through it already here, remember ?
It is impossible to prove an unbounded existential negative.

Thus, the burden of proof is on you to prove that an unconventional interaction between the Kacher and the Grenade exists, which results in more energy than the addition of their individual energy inputs.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
To suppose were not ignorant in some way is to be ignorant.
Exactly.  For example I am ignorant of this device's M.O.

I have a good hypothesis, though (based on known component phenomena), but it does not have an empirical proof.
Nick has an illogical hypothesis (something from nothing/vacuum) and it does not have an empirical proof, either.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352
  This discussion about ignorance has no end. Except when it does. Like NOW. As you don't agree nor believe anything that I say, nor what Akula, Ruslan, and Stalker have to say. And, not even what Tesla has mentioned, so, I will leave the proof, for you to ponder. As you are so much smarter.
But, This is not about ignorance, as you can very well repeat the exact process and MO back to me. So, I know that you, understand, yet don't believe it. And therefore you will NEVER ever build something that you don't believe in. Even if it were given to you by someone else, you would look for errors, instead, of what makes it work as it should.

   NickZ
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
..you don't agree nor believe anything that I say, nor what Akula, Ruslan, and Stalker have to say.
Belief is the duty of a disciple - not a scientist.
Also, it is incorrect for you to write that I disagree with everything you say - I just disagree with the illogic of "something from nothing/vacuum" in the same way as I disagree with 0+0>0.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352
Belief is the duty of a disciple - not a scientist.
It is incorrect for you to to write that, I disagree with everything you have to say - I just disagree with the illogic of "something from nothing/vacuum" in the same way as I disagree with 0+0>0.



   Verpies.
   Scientists prove their point by doing tests, and SHOWING their results, not by talk and unproven opinions. Talk is cheap, like your disagreements above. And the proof is in the pudding.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352
Belief is the duty of a disciple - not a scientist.
Also, it is incorrect for you to write that I disagree with everything you say - I just disagree with the illogic of "something from nothing/vacuum" in the same way as I disagree with 0+0>0.


   

   Oh, well Verpies,  have it your way, glad to hear that you don't disagree about everything?  I was getting worried about you.
 Is there anything else that you can add, as you are just so smart and educated, to "an ignorant" (noun), guys like me, on this FE thread?
I should of never asked... but, remember that your current scientists are saying that everything came from "nothing", all it took was, one Big Bang.
And that space is a vacuum, like nothing at all there. Your scientists think that, but, not Tesla. Which you don't believe in, either, such as in his papers on Energy from the Ambient. Tesla had hundreds of patents and proven inventions. Can I ask how many you have???
Makes me wonder, just how all those scientists know so much about the cosmos, when they haven't even left this small planet, and ventured beyond.

   NickZ
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Scientists prove their point by doing tests, and SHOWING their results,
Yes, but not only

...not by talk and unproven opinions.
logical talk is admissible when it refers to phenomena, which have been proven experimentally by others - and this is exactly what I have been doing.

Also, you are characterizing my input as theoretical only - that's unfair. 
It seems like your M.O. is to ignore all facts which disagree with what you arbitrarily had decided to be the truth.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352
Yes, but not only
logical talk is admissible when it refers to phenomena, which have been proven experimentally by others - and this is exactly what I have been doing.
Besides, you are characterizing my input as theoretical only - that's unfair from you.




   Maybe talk is admissible, but you will never show your results. So, what is the point of your personal opinions. When we are treading on unknown ground and effects. I am showing what I mean, and am not trying to toss more BS into this thread. Yes, your opinions of the magnetized wire are very theoretical, and nothing else. Please show proof, as nothing else really matters. But, I KNOW that you never will. On anything that you have said, or have guessed about, lately.

   NickZ
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
So, what is the point of your personal opinions.
To guide experimentation in the correct direction. 

I am not the only one that notices this. See below:

What we need is sound theory of the source of energy we want to tap. Then we need to prove theory, then and only then we can build a working prototype. I see all successful inventor followed that path.


Yes, your opinions of the magnetized wire are very theoretical, and nothing else.
The pulses I refereed to here are not theoretical - they are empirical.
The transition from non-ferromagnetic to ferromagnetic state is not theoretical - it is empirical.

Do you have a plausible explanation for it that's not from this list ?

I am showing what I mean,
What exactly are you showing that elucidates the M.O. ?
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352
   A sound theory is what you need? You have not believed any of the theories provided by the self runners inventors, and much less proven anything, at all one way or the other. Nor do you believe what Vasik has translated from various sources, and especially what I have mentioned about this device, that you will never build. That is what happens, when you just sit back and bitch about almost everything I say, and show nothing, yourself. I am showing my device, a TopRuslan7 carefully built replication, while you are showing nothing.
   Like I said, show the magnetic wire working as a self running device, or at least how the wire of unknown make up, after being used not just in any grenade,  is now needed for a self running device to function properly.
Are you still having technical difficulties??? If so, sorry to hear about that. Other wise, that's it for me about a piece of wire, or about what I mentioned about getting fooled into thinking that people are showing actual interaction, when they're not. At least you understand me on that, even if you may not agree. And yes, I'm adamant about that, also.

   NickZ
« Last Edit: 2021-11-08, 03:36:50 by NickZ »
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352

I kept quiet about it, not because I missed it but because I disagreed with the identification of the interacting components and did not want to elicit a flame war with you, knowing how tenaciously you cling to preconceived notions.  But you're asking for it, so there you go:

You see, I do not think that there is anything beyond conventional phenomena happening between the Kacher and Grenade and I think that no unusual energy gain happens in the "Grenade" at all - in other words, the "Grenade" is only a big choke and a capacitively coupled air-core transformer.
Frankly, I am annoyed with people who endow it with magical powers and I think that the only reason for it is because the "Grenade" is big and has an unusual shape (i.e. it is the most prominent component).

Of course without a working device I have no more proof for this hypothesis than you have for yours ...so I just keep quiet.

Other than that, I agree with you that there is an interaction somewhere in this device that goes beyond simple addition of energies from different sources ...but it is not between the Kacher and the "Grenade".













   
   

« Last Edit: 2021-11-08, 01:42:48 by NickZ »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
I am showing my device, a TopRuslan7 carefully built replication,
What exactly are you showing that elucidates the M.O. ?
Mere lighting bulbs to unmeasured brightness, arcing a screwdriver and showing the input ammeter and voltmeter does nothing to explain the M.O.

You've been blindly stumbling in the dark for 10 years with this approach. That is a lot of aimless stumbling despite being well versed in all the different M.O.s published by the authors of these devices.

Considering this, I will not follow in your footsteps.

...while you are showing nothing.
But I am. When I find something that has not been investigated before, I investigate it empirically. I have done so even in this tread. But you just disregard it, because your mind is naturally blind to all facts which conflict with what you had arbitrarily decided to be an immutable truth. ...be it scientific or personal.

Also, when I correlate some well known and empirically proven phenomenon with my observations about this device, then this is not "nothing" - it is scientific progress.

Like I said, show the magnetic wire working as a self running device.
You are reversing the cause and effect again.
It is not a "magnetic" wire that makes a working device but a working device that changes non-ferromagnetic wire into a ferromagnetic one.

By the same token, why don't you show me nothingness/vacuum working as a free energy source ? i'll make it easy for you - it doesn't even have to be a self-runner - just  one anomalous repeatable microjoule of net energy from nothing/vacuum.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 346
I think Verpies you should propose how to  proof or disproof theory with tools . Can the beta radiation from overunity device be sensed and measured according to theory ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
What seems to be missing is everything that actually matters...
Yeah

1)What is energy?, because this is an energy conversion device.
This and this gives a hint what it is in general.

2)What is the exact mechanism which allows for a gain, where is it, why is it?.
3)What is the process required to produce the effect which produced the gain?.
Exactly, but I cannot accept that it is energy from nothing/vacuum like Nick is hypothesizing, because 0+0=0.
That is why I am a proponent of energy from "something".

This song springs to mind Here Wow - Kate Bush (it's unbelievable! Heh.)
Wouldn't Cloudbusting be more appropriate ?

didn't you observe Kators post 2 pages back ? obviously not ![/b][/i][/u]
I did and even replied to it here.

I believe it was both McFarland Cook and Carlos Benitez who used two coils and some switches to produce the effect.
In my opinion the problem is pretty obvious and there is no methodology, coherent theory or basic experiments trying to prove the actual effect . I mean two coils and some switches...how hard could it be?.
I looked into Benitez. He has filed 4 patents:

GB191417811A - Benitez's 1st Patent.
Sets out his basic system for generating usable electric power from
an initial electrical charge.

GB191514311A - Benitez's 2nd Patent.
Also a Patent of Addition relating to Patents 17811 and 5591, which gives both provisional and complete specifications on using his
system with "low voltages, smaller capacities" and "greater facilities for starting".

GB191505591A - Benitez's 3rd Patent.
A Patent of Addition relating to Patent 17811, which describes certain improvements to the basic system, supposedly making the
system cheaper to build and maintain.

GB1918121561A - Benitez's 4th Patent.
A Patent which describes a different method of making and operating Mr Benitez's original system, including showing
provisions for automatic operation. This patent contains a useful detailed example showing the order of determining and working out
the values of the various resistances, capacitances and inductances used in the machine.
-------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately these patents concentrate on the process required to produce the effect and not much on the exact mechanism which allows for the gain, i.e.: where it is, why it is.
The words beginning on line 43 of page 2 of the 1st patent bear a resemblance to the principle translated by Vasik here.

The proverbial elephant in the room visible in the diagram from the 1st patent are the orientations of these diodes. See the diagram below:
« Last Edit: 2021-11-08, 16:01:25 by verpies »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2066
verpies
Quote
Exactly, but I cannot accept that it is energy from nothing/vacuum like Nick is hypothesizing, because 0+0=0.
That is why I am a proponent of energy from "something".

Every FE inventor had there own ideas of where the energy gain came from. Most started with atmospherics which is an obvious choice then the Aether, zero point energy, transmutation and so on. Recently I discovered some things relating to the effect in question which led me in a new direction. I concluded there is no energy gain and the extra energy was part of the input. As many inventors said, we should be aware of the sum of all energy present in the system. Which comes full circle back to... what is energy?.

Quote
Unfortunately these patents concentrate on the process required to produce the effect and not much on the exact mechanism which allows for the gain, i.e.: where it is, why it is.
The proverbial elephant in the room visible in the diagram from the 1st patent is the direction of these diodes. See the diagram below:

At first I found the diodes confusing as well until I replicated the circuit and effect. Benitez was using mercury tube rectifiers configured as threshold detectors. That is, any current must rise to the breakdown voltage before conducting. We could think of it as a filter of sorts blocking low voltage currents. I use this back to back diode setup to filter out LV in many of my devices for the reasons given.

I always assume ignorance on my part versus any inventor who produced working technology. Consider the diode dilemma, it can be used as a low voltage filter, negative resistance oscillator or pseudo spark gap. It's a brilliant setup but we would never know that unless we followed through and assumed some ignorance on our part. It's not rocket science, were looking for knowledge we lack and the only way to get it is by keeping an open mind and applying a little science to the problem.


Quote
This song springs to mind Here Wow - Kate Bush (it's unbelievable! Heh.)
didn't you observe Kators post 2 pages back ? obviously not ![/b][/i][/u]
lol, AG modified my post and we can tell by the "last edit" at the bottom of the post. Cool song but I removed his edit.

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: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Every FE inventor had there own ideas of where the energy gain came from. Most started with atmospherics...
I could be open to considering atmospherics but not to "nothing/vacuum".

At first I found the diodes confusing as well until I replicated the circuit and effect.
You did it successfully ?
With mercury tube rectifiers and HV ?

Benitez was using mercury tube rectifiers configured as threshold detectors.
So this device's successful operation requires mercury tube rectifiers ?
...or any rectifier with a comparable I vs. V charactersitics ?

That is, any current must rise to the breakdown voltage before conducting. We could think of it as a filter of sorts blocking low voltage currents.
However mercury tube rectifiers break down at 10s of volts only in the forward direction. They do not break down like that in reverse !!!
This means that two of them connected like they are on that schematic, will not break down collectively at <1kV and conduct any current.

Thus this explanation is illogical unless you are talking about some HV reverse breakdown, are you?

I use this back to back diode setup to filter out LV in many of my devices for the reasons given.
...and I use Transils for higher voltages.

« Last Edit: 2021-11-09, 00:49:04 by verpies »
   

Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 273
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
@ AC a mercury vapour rect, are you taking the piss ?
Transil whats that other than a trade name, do you mean a TVS diode or a transorb ? thay are pulse devices
not voltage regulators.

If you want some friendly advice dont quit your day time job till you get your degree!
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Thus, there can be no current flow below the breakdown voltage of one of the diodes which is the whole point of this setup.
So you were talking about the reverse breakdown voltage.
This was not so obvious because mercury rectifiers also have an analogous forward voltage of several 10s of volts in addition to the much much higher reverse breakdown voltage.

3)However if they actually tested this setup they would have understood that no current can flow through the coil until it reaches the breakdown voltage of "one" of the diodes.
4)Which then leaves us with the only relevant question that matters ... why?.
I know exactly why Benitez used this setup... what are your thoughts on this matter?.
There could be many reasons:
1) Increase the rise time of voltage on C5
2) Prevent the loading a TA's primary as long as possible in the cycle.
3) Exploit the TA's interwinding capacitance.
4) Isolate the circuit formed by C5, SG and Primary of TB (7)  from the secondary of TA to allow its unencumbered oscillations at voltages below the diode's reverse breakdown voltage and to prevent these oscillation from going back through TA.

@Allcanadian
If you expect me to answer your questions you must answer mine, too.  If you leave any sentence of mine, which ends with a question mark, without a direct answer, then I will find it disrespectful and eventually offensive.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2066
verpies
Quote
If you expect me to answer your questions you must answer mine, too.  If you leave any sentence of mine, which ends with a question mark, without a direct answer, then I will find it disrespectful and eventually offensive.

I believe paragraph 1 answered question 1-4 and paragraphs 3, 4 answered question 5.

I noticed the circuit diagram you posted looks like something from Patrick Kelly which I have found to be questionable in the past. In this diagram it appears he may have all of the diodes backward. Usually the mercury pool or cathode appears as a black dot which is the negative terminal of the rectifier. Many FE inventors in the past used electron flow notation just as I do for some reason...

Quote
There could be many reasons:
1) Increase the rise time of voltage on C5
2) Prevent the loading a TA's primary as long as possible in the cycle.
3) Exploit the TA's interwinding capacitance.
4) Isolate the circuit formed by C5, SG and Primary of TB (7)  from the secondary of TA to allow its unencumbered oscillations at voltages below the diode's reverse breakdown voltage and to prevent these oscillation from going back through TA.

Yes there could be many reasons and I understand the operation of the step up transformer A your referring to. I'm more interested in coil 59 of transformer E, what could be going on there?. Here we have a circuit element which looks similar to an Avramenko plug with one diode reversed. Of course Benitez application predates Avramenko by almost 80 years.

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: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
In this diagram it appears he may have all of the diodes backward. Usually the mercury pool or cathode appears as a black dot which is the negative terminal of the rectifier. Many FE inventors in the past used electron flow notation just as I do for some reason...
I do not know which notation he is using but the patent also has arrows in the neighborhood of the mercury rectifiers to indicate the current direction. Also, I think that the relative/mutual orientation of these rectifiers matters more than the absolute one.

I'm more interested in coil 59 of transformer E, what could be going on there?. Here we have a circuit element which looks similar to an Avramenko plug with one diode reversed.
It looks strange.
Notice that 2 rectifiers per winding are used in these cases, when according to Kirchoff's current law only one would have been sufficient, if the reverse breakdown of these rectifiers did not occur at all.
It might have something to do with the intent to make this differential breakdown voltage equal in both directions or with the transmission of Common Mode signals through the interwinding capacitive susceptance of the transformer.

The latter would be even harder to replicate than the properties of the mercury rectifiers.

Also, notice that all rectifiers except the ones connected to the winding 4 of transformer A, have this reversed AV Plug configuration.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
This does relate to the Kapanadze/Ruslan technology however we should probably move this debate to another thread.
You're right but please don't move it into that Benitez thread which contained the discussion about the device based on lead-acid batteries.
I really dislike even talking about devices in which the key component is a rechargeable battery.
« Last Edit: 2021-11-09, 23:24:35 by verpies »
   

Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 273
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
@ Nick Looking at some of your post are most interesting but I have had a couple of requests by others.
Nick I would like to this thread on focus if thats possible as you know the old OU thread was a mess
and any thing goes Some times i wonder about AC posts though ! I mean does he read others posts
or just blindly ignor basic facts when he is an expert consultant authority on the subject, I know that
 because he told me him self  :) ;) :D >:-)
Sil

   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 352
@ Nick Looking at some of your post are most interesting but I have had a couple of requests by others.
Nick I would like to this thread on focus if thats possible as you know the old OU thread was a mess
and any thing goes Some times i wonder about AC posts though ! I mean does he read others posts
or just blindly ignor basic facts when he is an expert consultant authority on the subject, I know that
 because he told me him self  :) ;) :D >:-)
Sil

   


   Oh Really!  Did you get some requests for Verpies also? Who's been distracting this thread and going on a tangent for the last several pages.
 I had just given my opinion, that all that talk and discussions about a piece of unknown wire, will just get swept under the carpet and ignored, as NO ONE will do a thing about it. Especially me.

   AG:  You know, that this is what happens when no one is building anything, nor will they, nor will you actually build something like what this thread is about, in the near future. So, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, some more...

   You are free to remove any and all my posts, as this last discussion is going no where. And it seams that no one here cares to discuss what we are actually here for. And it seams that Verpies just want to distract, and does not even believe that there is any thing to this type of device, and I'm not into giving in to his whims, either. So, do what ever you want.
   I will focus on this thread, when there is something to focus about. Looks like most guys here are not into doing anything other than speculating. So...

   NickZ
   
Pages: 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-01-18, 10:12:01