PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-12-07, 07:39:35
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 ... 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 311442 times)
Group: Guest
Solarlab
Thanks for the Abramovich information, he mirrors much of what I have said in my "what is energy" thread.

I can tell you as a fact AG modified one of my posts because the "last edit" at the bottom of my post showed AG. He should cease this activity or be banned from posting in my opinion. Next time take a picture of the last edit and report it to admin.

Regards
AC
Yes and I told you why !

AC you don't have any rights to post here, if your going to post inflammatory stuff or BS by TROLLing !
You have your own thread why don’t you use it ? DONT ABUSE MY SPACE!

That’s why we can POLICE our own threads.

PS I need to mark your unrelated crud for later deleation after a week. Got it ?

AC if you have a device of interest to others why not post it or a link to it.
just stop going round in circles !

Sil
« Last Edit: 2021-11-12, 23:48:05 by AlienGrey »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Ref: reply to your #2385; I have a difficult time responding to posts that are "broken up - so to speak."
Get used to it.  This is the most precise way to reply to multiple issues.
Without associating my replies with your specific words, you'd have less clues to what my replies are referring to.

They appear, to me at least, to be too nit picky,
"Nitpicking" is an action of giving too much attention to unimportant detail.

This is a science forum and the devil is in the details so there is nothing wrong bringing up details here.

"Unimportant" is a problem, but which details in my posts do you find unimportant ?
Certainly it cannot be the difference between the "electron drift velocity" and the "intermolecular electron velocity" because 6 orders of magnitude is too large of a difference to qualify as "unimportant".

...and they just drone into a "word soup."
"Word soup" or "word salad"  is "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases".
I don't think this description applies to my posts, but that is my opinion and I cannot be my own judge.
I hereby ask other members to voice their opinions about this serious allegation.

Also, off-the-cuff comments without any reference material, or other discussion, are generally just filed under "opinion"...
What are you referring to?
I have you a reference material to the concept of "drift velocity" in a gaseus medium in the file "Drift Velocity in Mercury Vapour.pdf"
Do you need me to provide you a reference about the "intermolecular electron velocity", too, before you answer my question as to which one you had in mind in your description of the operational principle ?

Note, that I asked you two questions and you still have not replied to them.
You did not understand the difference between drift and intermolecular velocity, so I explained it to you.  The explanation was taken from mainstream science - it is not only my opinion.

Do you require more explanation or just being deliberately evasive ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Here's a clue, first verpies posted a bs diagram of the Carlos Benitez patent with batteries and diodes.
I replied to your reference to Benitez patents, which you mentioned first here.
Yes, I posted a schematic using modern symbols of electronic components, which I did not author (I found it on OU.com) but I do not understand why you call it "BS" (that moniker means "entirely false" with the intention to deceive).

What is false about this diagram ?
Assigning modern diode symbols to mercury rectifiers ?

BTW: The schematic does not contain a battery symbol (only a symbol of an electrolytic capacitor.).  If the author of this modern schematic used a symbol of another capacitor technology then let's change it if you have data about it and if it matters.
Also, note that the text of the patent mentions a battery of capacitors (capacitors connected in series) , which still qualifies as a capacitor.

Then he didn't understand the direction of the mercury rectifiers nor there function.
And I still do not understand their function entirely.  We had a good conversation going about them when you wrote that you want to move it to another thread.
Where is that thread ?

He also didn't catch the obvious fact that Benitez refers to inner and outer condenser coating and depicts Leyden Jar condensers in former patents.
I did catch the reference about the inner and outer coating but I did not bring it up in our conversation.  You did not, either.

Also, the mere mention of these coating does not mean that the capacitor technology used by Benitez was based on Leyden jars because I've encountered identical inner/outer terminology in reference to other capacitor technologies which also have an inner and outer plate., e.g. see this video.
Last but not least, the physical drawing in the GB191505591 patent depicts cuboid capacitors that do not look like the typical cylindrical shapes of a Leyden jars while the schematic does and the GB191417811 patent depicts parallel multiplate capacitors explicitly.
So it seems to me that you are guessing the capacitor technology as much as anyone who reads these patents.

He also didn't realize the device only has one input wire and two ground connections and clearly states the device can only be started by an electrostatic source such as a HV Wimshurst generator.

You are wrong about this detail.

The text of the patent clearly states that it can be a source of electric currents and gives the Wimshurst generator as only one example. See the quote from the patent below:
Quote from: Patent GB191417811
...and supposing battery 1, connected by 49 means of wire 13, to a source of electric currents, (one electro-static machine Wimshurst, for instance);"

Quote from: Allcanadian link=topic=3926.msg95977#msg95977
For these reasons alone I would consider verpies an amateur FE researcher at best
Yes, I am an amateur in this field but aren't we all ?  Is any one here getting paid for this ?

Quote from: Allcanadian link=topic=3926.msg95977#msg95977
..., at worst he is distracting people.
Since when asking questions about statements in other user's posts is distracting ?
...and distracting from what ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Verpies, "Get used to." - You're kidding right...
No, I am serious.
there is nothing wrong with my attention to detailed replies on this forum and there is a lot of wrong with your aversion to detailed replies or replies at all.

You still did not reply to my question.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Breaking up two straight forward sentences (which states my approach) into
Which straight forward sentences do you refer to?
If you quoted them like I do, I would have no doubts.

"The crime of the century" kinda makes my point don't you think?
No, it only illustrates that you are not used to precise communication.
BTW: I never accused you of any crime. Quote me where I did.

I just asked you two questions.l
You are still avoiding answering them.

And, Drift Velocity in Mercury Vapor (a 3rd or 4th phase solid) has little or nothing to do with e=mc2.
That reference was to the concept of "Drift Velocity" in a gas, which was the object of my question.
Also, mercury vapor is not a solid.

...has little or nothing to do with e=mc2.
Now. Lets get back on topic, shall we!
The mass energy equivalence was not a subject of my question.
So, yes let's get back on topic and answer to what were you referring in your description of the operation principle ?:
The electron drift velocity or electron intermolecular velocity ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
You are incorrect...
Incorrect about what? The existence of electron drift velocity in a gas discharge ?  ...or the existence of electron collisions with gas molecules ?

Even an amateur Tesla coiler knows that in a grounded system with a negatively charged top load "the electrons" can travel a great distance as corona or VAD.
Yes, but that example is non-sequitur because my statement was about the electron velocity not about the distance of an avalanching gas discharge or the range of TC's electric field.

If radiant matter charged with electrons (electron carriers) are ejected then the electrons can travel an even greater distance.
Yes, a lone ion can travel indefinitely, but not so if it is not alone.  Especially in the presence of opposite charge carriers.

What are you up to, why are you and AG harassing the new member?.
How am I harassing him?
I just asked him two questions about electron motion in the principle of operation which he proposed and I provided an explanation after he indicated that he does not understand them.

Is asking relevant detailed questions harassing now ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Funny thing how you can get carried away talking about "electrons".
What do you mean by "carried away" ?
The motion of electrons and other charge carriers is germane to the operational principle proposed by Solarlab.

Do you contend that electrons do not exist or do not play a major role in a gas discharges ?
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 326
What do you mean by "carried away" ?
The motion of electrons and other charge carriers is germane to the operational principle proposed by Solarlab.

Do you contend that electrons do not exist or do not play a major role in a gas discharges ?

So, as briefly as possible, what is your interpretation or understanding of "the operational principle proposed by Solarlab?"

Your answer will be of assistance in our further discussions and clarification.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
So, as briefly as possible, what is your interpretation or understanding of "the operational principle proposed by Solarlab?"
Velocity modulation of charge carriers (i.e. electrons) by the oscillating electric field of a standing wave.



Now answer my question, especially that I asked it first.
« Last Edit: 2021-11-14, 03:08:33 by verpies »
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 326
Hey Fellows,

A quick post from the dock/deck -

FREE BEER - and Warsteiner no less!  Take Care, Have great weekend...

SL

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4162

I find it very typical of the FE community that asking questions very often is being taken as "harassing" or "BS".

Especially from members who in their entire forum life when i was around (10 years or so) have NEVER shown anything else then words on a screen and i don't mean verpies as i KNOW he has an
extensive lab and does experiments to test out all kind of things all the time.

Its very much as MudPed says:  "Verpies, your questions and comments are very much in accord with the Scientific Method which too many in the Free Energy Community are uncomfortable with." 



I have mentioned this before, there is always a layer beneath the things we see and THINK we understand and it needs guys like verpies to show that hard truth which can be very frustrating.
But in the end its inevitable to know all these layers and how they interact with each other for being able to understand the Modus Operandus (working principle) of a device.

I hope Solarlab understands as he has a refreshing new look on the device being discussed here and is able to supply answers on the questions raised without seeing them as nitpicking or BS.

Regards Itsu 
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
One thing is certain

This is a time to work together… anyway we can!

And absolutely , the scientific method is the only way to hunt for FE

Brutal Honesty!(Verpies method and many others.

I will add one comment which may seem whimsical, Nicks perspective
Connecting to the wheel works of nature (Tesla quote )!
Does seem to imply a “different “ technique ( not aggressive or ?

IMO we need all the help we can get , and a direction forward…
Which I do believe Verpies is sincerely pursuing in these comments!

Respectfully
Chet K

   
Group: Guest
   We can ask questions and discuss our opinions all day long, but that doesn't mean they are right. The proof is in the pudding, in this case, there is none.
   What everyone is doing now is just guessing, and that looks to be all that any one is doing. Therefore, not much is really being done here, at all.
   Maybe another 10 years of guessing is in order. As I see no advancements due to these distractions, and questions that no one has answers for, except for Verpies, and he is also just guessing concerning this device. Which all he has tried to do is tell us how it doesn't work. As he does not even believe it can ever work as shown.
   If Verpies with his extensive lab is doing tests about all this, I may listen, but not about him just guessing about a piece of wire, and such, for pages on end.  I see this and most of the other discussions going on now as only further distractions to the real tests on this device, which no one has built, nor even gotten to work, and probably never will even try to make it work. Or even just guessing about how this device works, without showing anything at all, nor building anything. THAT is scientific??? I call it stumbling in the dark.
  That is all that any of you are doing. Except for Itsu, which is just as stuck as Geo or myself is at this.  So, lets just keeping guessing, as it's so much fun.

Edit removed terminating statment.
   NickZ
« Last Edit: 2021-11-15, 11:22:31 by AlienGrey »
   
Group: Guest
One thing is certain

This is a time to work together… anyway we can!

And absolutely , the scientific method is the only way to hunt for FE

Brutal Honesty!(Verpies method and many others.

I will add one comment which may seem whimsical, Nicks perspective
Connecting to the wheel works of nature (Tesla quote )!
Does seem to imply a “different “ technique ( not aggressive or ?

IMO we need all the help we can get , and a direction forward…
Which I do believe Verpies is sincerely pursuing in these comments!

Respectfully
Chet K






    Chet K:
   Yes, Verpies is trying to discredit me, as well as Tesla, by saying that both of us are not as well versed at this FE stuff as he is.
He thinks, that there is NO SUCH THING as "energy from the air", with his Nothing from the vacume, logic of his. And he is the one that is supposed to be helping us??  No wonder...his brutal guesses don't impress me much...

   NickZ


   PS.  I don't know what's with this site, but I can't get out of the above quote box. No matter how many clicks I give the keyboard. Sorry.

Sorted….



   
« Last Edit: 2021-11-13, 14:44:53 by Grumage »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
The electron beam source is the Katcher/TT operating in free air. [/color]
...and in which direction do these electrons travel once they leave the Kacher/TT ?
Where does their journey end ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Yes, Verpies is trying to discredit me,
No, you are taking it too personally.
I am trying to discredit the notion of energy from nothing/vacuum.

That is very different from trying to discredit the entire person.

by saying that both of us are not as well versed at this FE stuff as he is.
No, I am not an expert in the "FE stuff" but I do understand the current body of physical knowledge, I pay attention to detail and follow logic and the scientific method.
To me energy from nothing is as illogical as 0+0>0.

He thinks, that there is NO SUCH THING as "energy from the air",
Air is not nothing.
Because of this I am willing to entertain operational principles which incorporate air and phenomena taking place in air (like Solarlab's).
Therefore you are mistaken that I think, that "there is NO SUCH THING as energy from the air".

with his Nothing from the vacume, logic of his.
I agree with you, here.  It is illogical to have something from nothing.

No wonder...his brutal guesses don't impress me much...
They are not guesses. They are observations and association with the phenomena taken from the current body of physical knowledge.
A non-ferromagnetic wire becoming ferromagnetic after being exposed to this device is one example of such observation. To ignore it is not to have scientific integrity.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3926.msg95927#msg95927

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3926.msg95928#msg95928
I am not smart enough to deduce the electron path from its source to the destination.  Certainly not only from these FEA simulations of the E & H fields. See my failed attempt below.

This is your baby so you are best qualified to explain what happens in it and what paths the electrons take on their journey from the source.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Try this one, it's animated. Actually, it's a complex interaction - not quite like pouring metal dust on a paper over a magnet.
It is complex. I was looking at that animation of the time-varying Electric Field Strength map which gives me the quantitative indication of the intensity of an electric field at a particular point in space and time.

Statically, an electron (or any other charge carrier) will be attracted (or repelled) to the point of the highest Electric Field Strength.
Dynamically, the situation is the same but the instantaneous value of the Electric Field Strength at a particular snapshot of electron's motion needs to be taken under account.

I cannot do this just by looking at it.

It is your baby, though and you should be able to tell what is the destination of these electrons.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 389
@NickZ,
It's time we stopped this whole problems of attaching one another and focus on what we have at hand. If I may ask and if your mind is still in this device replication, what have you done lately concerning advancing your build.

I know you said you are stuck, have you tried out something new? You shouldn't wait for one Messiah to come from somewhere and give you a " Cut to size and nail instructions on how to build the device without regards to cause".I do think where you are getting it wrong is looking for effect only. Most people who mastered the act of doing things never did it like that by negating processes or other people's idea.

If your objective is to wait for such person(s) to give you a complete package of instructions then wait patiently and at the same time encourage them.

Scientific approach is the best and invaluable option toward this device. Many a man built this device by fluke and could not repeat it again. This is because the basic idea isn't there in the first place. While some build could not work consistently. If the fundamental is there why won't the builder improvise.

Consequently upon the above, I strongly support a well detailed scientific approach of replicating  this contraption so that it can be demystified as we have always thought of it as being anomalous. To us now the secret might look hidden, which in the real sense might not be hidden of itself. We are gradually approaching it.

Free energy for all

Maxolous
   
Group: Guest
   You mean like you AG?? Edit No not me  ;D
  Who is the guy that knows more about this . Tell me. You? OR SOME ONE ELSE, that has built nothing at all. Now knows more.
  Like I said, you are free to delete whatever you want.
  At this point, it makes no difference to me. This thread is going no where fast.
  I tried to do something about it, but, now I give up.
   Moderator: please delete All my posts. I don't want to bore these smart guys, any more. No need to wait until Monday. I dare you AG. Do it....

   NickZ
« Last Edit: 2021-11-15, 11:12:54 by AlienGrey »
   
Group: Guest
   You mean like you AG??
  Who is the guy that knows more about this . Tell me.
  Like I said, you are free to delete whatever you want.
  At this point, it makes no difference to me. This thread is going no where fast.
  I tried to do something about it, but, now I give up.
   Moderator: please delete All my posts. I don't want to bore these smart guys, any more.

   NickZ
No one is like me Nick ;D :D :D
   
Group: Guest
   That's for sure...You and Verpies, great team. You two guys will have something self running in no time.
« Last Edit: 2021-11-13, 21:58:13 by NickZ »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
OK, my part is done so I won't hang.
Not so fast

Current Ruslan generator type apparatus can be made to work As Is, but the Katcher/TT output voltage and phase must be co-ordinated with the wavefront of the signal in the Grenade Coil (GC, SWS) which, in turn, must match the GC pitch and diameter (the SWS characteristics).
So there are two factors which need to be matched in this scenario:
a) The time it takes the charge carriers (electrons or positive ions) to travel 1 pitch distance of the coil (GC,SWS) while moving through air.
b) The time it takes to reverse the voltage polarity on adjacent turns of the coil (GC, SWS, each turn is separated by 1 pitch of axial distance).




So lets assume that the the coil is 10cm long and its pitch is 1cm and the Kacher/TT provides a 10kV acceleration voltage over the length of the entire coil. If so then we can calculate this:
  • 1. The acceleration potential between each axial pitch distance of the coil is 1kV because 10kV * 1cm/10cm = 1kV
  • 2. If we assume no collisions of the electrons with air molecules then they gain 1keV of energy between 1 pitch of the coil (1cm).
  • 3. According to the non-relativistic formula ve=(2E/me)0.5 then the electrons become accelerated to 18754631m/s over one pitch of the coil (1cm) because ve = (1 keV)0.5 * 593073.5m/s
  • 4. At this speed it takes an electron 533ps to travel the axial distance of one coil pitch (1cm)
  • 5. Inverting that period yields a matching frequency of 1.88GHz  to obtain the optimum TWT energy transfer to the moving electrons :o

This is very far from the kHz operating regime of this device.  So there is something wrong.

The error is easy to spot - it is in pt.2 and pt.3 because in reality electrons collide with molecules of air and they do not get accelerated to such high speeds as in vacuum (and no the paper you quoted does not state otherwise).

So we need to use the drift velocity of electrons in air which is much slower.  According to the attached paper, the most pessimistic drift velocity of electrons in air is 300000m/s.  That is 62x slower than the velocity in vacuum.



...so continuing the analysis with this slower electron speed we get:

  • ...
  • 4. At this speed it takes an electron 33ns to travel the axial distance of one coil pitch (1cm)
  • 5. Inverting that period yields a matching frequency of  30MHz  to obtain the optimum TWT energy transfer to the moving electrons

Hmm, still ~100x too much to agree with the kHz operating regime of this device :(

What else can we do to make it work?  Here are some ideas:
a) Measure the electron drift velocity in air ourselves experimentally - maybe we'll get a lower speed at our acceleration voltage and air pressure.
b) Lower the electron acceleration voltage potential between the turns of the coil to lower the charge carriers' acceleration and velocity.
c) Increase the gas pressure to decrease the distance & time between collisions and consequently lower the charge carriers' velocity.
d) Try larger pitches of the coil.
e) Consider the speed of the positive ions which move ~150x slower than the electrons.
f) Play with harmonics.


P.S.
The relativistically corrected formula for the velocity of electrons in vacuum yields only 1% slower speeds for electrons below 24keV.
« Last Edit: 2021-11-14, 09:09:53 by verpies »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
Anytime you have charge carriers moving through gas, you have electric current flowing in that gas and that constitutes gas discharge.  There are 3 types when the cathode is cold:

1: Townsend discharge
Below the breakdown voltage. At low voltages, the only current is that due to the generation of charge carriers in the gas by cosmic rays or other sources of ionizing radiation. As the applied voltage is increased, the free electrons carrying the current gain enough energy to cause further ionization, causing an electron avalanche. In this regime, the current increases from femtoamperes to microamperes, i.e. by nine orders of magnitude, for very little further increase in voltage. The voltage-current characteristics begins tapering off near the breakdown voltage and the glow becomes visible.

2: Glow discharge
Which occurs once the breakdown voltage is reached. The voltage across the electrodes suddenly drops and the current increases to milliampere range. At lower currents, the voltage across the tube is almost current-independent; this is used in glow discharge voltage-regulator tubes. At lower currents, the area of the electrodes covered by the glow discharge is proportional to the current. At higher currents the normal glow turns into abnormal glow, the voltage across the tube gradually increases, and the glow discharge covers more and more of the surface of the electrodes. Low-power switching (glow-discharge thyratrons), voltage stabilization, and lighting applications (e.g. Nixie tubes, decatrons, neon lamps) operate in this region.

3: Arc discharge
Which occurs in the ampere range of the current; the voltage across the tube drops with increasing current. High-current switching tubes, e.g. triggered spark gap, ignitron, thyratron and krytron (and its vacuum tube derivate, sprytron, using vacuum arc), high-power mercury-arc valves and high-power light sources, e.g. mercury-vapor lamps and metal halide lamps, operate in this range.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Glow_discharge_current-voltage_curve_English.svg/2880px-Glow_discharge_current-voltage_curve_English.svg.png
Dally, Shark & Ruslan workbench



Here is a link to the full Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_discharge_in_gases


QUESTION:  Which type of charge carrier flow do you postulate in your operational principle ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3501
@ All

Guys, do you know where to find a video of this Fluorescent Tube Accelerator ?
It operates on a similar principle to the TWT amplifier but the alternating electric potentials along the tube were created by circular capacitor plates powered by a center-tapped transformer (not by alternating electric potentials of a standing wave in a transmission line/coil).

I have seen it on YouTube somewhere but cannot find it now.
The author claimed that the initial electron drift velocity in the Ar/Hg vapors inside the tube was only 250m/s and this speed was increasing as the alternating potentials on the plates matched this speed and distance between the plates and accelerated the electrons along the tube (hence the increasing spacing of the plates).
Note that at 250m/s the time needed to travel 1cm is only 40µs and inverting that period yields a friendly frequency of 25kHz.



« Last Edit: 2021-11-14, 02:26:54 by verpies »
   
Pages: 1 ... 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 2024-12-07, 07:39:35