PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-08-16, 14:04:56
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 11 [12] 13
Author Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate  (Read 13745 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1606
Re The Brazilian bread slicer gizmo
I haven’t spoken with them in quite some time
However
It was pocket change and a hobby to the owner!

Nothing like Holcomb’s decades long journey (almost life long)
And his commitment to this goal …patents as well his professional reputation!
Yes …
He has been shipping ready for at least one month .?
However I have not heard of product actually going out
To customers yet ( hope to hear soon

Also I believe a discussion is taking place on Solarlabs pdf
And how to proceed .

Any useful suggestions there ( pdf)
PLEASE ( any reader with helpful comment !
Speak up !
Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
There is a chance that if this pdf or a few other FE ideas being discussed at this time
Show potential ?
There might be a place for TinselKoala at the dormant Florida lab !
(Already presented the idea
great idea
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
I'd rather bet the farm on Mike's or my own bench than Holcomb's....
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
...
And his commitment to this goal …patents as well his professional reputation!
...
PLEASE ( any reader with helpful comment !
Speak up !
...

Holcomb's reputation pales in comparison with the physicists who have written the history of physics.

One can only discuss refutable things, i.e. the facts and the logic between them, otherwise it is like discussing the sex of angels.

Holcomb does not provide the logic of energy via spin, and for the facts, he remains unable to have them reproduced by a third party.
So as long as Holcomb is so flippant, I don't see how we can be "helpful" or what there is to discuss, except to indulge oneself with no possibility of operational results.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
F6FLT
Quote
Thanks for the link to the pdf, which here opens up nicely. But I still don't see what we want to do.
As Feyman quoted above "The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is clear language."

Indeed, as an Engineer I can look at any operating manual for a piece of equipment like a gas turbine for example and it explains...
1)What the device does, it's purpose or goal.
2)How the device operates, a clear explanation from start to finish how every part interacts to achieve a specific goal. It explains exactly how it can do what it claims it can do.

This is not true of the Holcomb device and it does not explain the only points which matter. How do we align more domains in the core and how exactly does this translate into extra energy on the output?. What is the exact process involved which supposedly transforms the energy in the domains into the extra voltage/current in the output conductors?.

In fact this is the same problem everyone has with every free energy device. People can parrot what the inventor say's and make a device which looks like the inventors device however it never works because the real knowledge and understanding to make it work is always missing. Even more bizarre is the one thing which could make something work, a solid working theory based on real science, is the last thing anyone is talking about.

Here Feynman tried to explain the actual nature of the problem with his first principals...
Quote
"The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be."
"And therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn’t pre-decide what it is we are trying to do except to find out more about it."


In fact the mental process Feynman used is almost identical to Nikola Tesla's which I learned. It relies on avoiding all the clutter of authority ergo science/laws, he said/she said and others thoughts promoting confirmation bias. This is why Feynman said "describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be". It is this bias we all have which causes us to overlook something rather than trying to understand it. We assume someone understands something better than we do, an appeal to authority/confirmation bias, and dismiss other evidence or perspectives in the process. Think of it this way, were not trying to ignore or break the laws of science but build upon them, expand them and make progress.

The methodology is very simple, we break everything down into it's smallest parts and then look at all the forces and motions involved. We do not apply bulk laws which generalize, use lumped sums or processes or use imaginary notations which muddy the waters. We look at every part discretely for what it is and analyze how it interacts with everything else around it. As we break everything down and build it back up in different ways we can start to recognize patterns how something acts under different conditions. In effect were not trying to mimic or repeat what others have done but look at all the evidence from different perspectives to try to learn something new.

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: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
What Holcomb explains is conventional. We have known for more than a century how to make rotating fields, and that a rotating field is only a locally variable field with the same effects as any other variable field.

The only point that makes his machine interesting is that it would produce more than it consumes. Engineers know that this is impossible from the laws of physics and their engineering equations, and absolutely nothing in the patent description explains how this process would be performed.

It is not enough to say "energy comes from spin" to explain anything. He could also have said "energy comes from the ZPE", or "energy comes from neutrinos", or "energy comes from LENR reactions" that it would be exactly the same thing: an impossibility to verify it, the assertion being irrefutable by lack of evidence.
Only facts or a rigorous theoretical description should trigger the analysis of a FE machine, since without facts or theory, there is nothing to analyze.

The analysis of the patent not being able to make it possible to conclude with the FE, then check the facts. Either Holcomb produces a proof of concept allowing an easy and reproducible demonstration of a new phenomenon, or those who believe in its invention duplicate it. Only then will we need an analysis... if it works!


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 75
In fact this is the same problem everyone has with every free energy device. People can parrot what the inventor say's and make a device which looks like the inventors device however it never works because the real knowledge and understanding to make it work is always missing. Even more bizarre is the one thing which could make something work, a solid working theory based on real science, is the last thing anyone is talking about.

Indeed so many people just want to build a working device without caring how it works.

Imagine the horror of actually succeeding this way...
You make a machine on the bench that is idling by producing 2kw of continuous power.
You took all the measurements you removed all the batteries you disconnected all the circuitry and it's sitting there humming away, lighting a bank of halogen bulbs.
Then you go to bed and come back the next morning and now it won't turn on.

You then spend the next days and years pulling your hair out trying to figure out what went wrong.  Never knowing if it was a loose wire or a resonance with a drill sitting nearby or a rare stellar alignment with Venus.  You'll never know because you don't know the principle of operation.

The horror of actually having something magical but being unable to repeat it because you didn't know the principle of operation?    John Hutchinson is a great example, with a month of success followed by a lifetime of failure.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
F6FLT
Quote
The only point that makes his machine interesting is that it would produce more than it consumes. Engineers know that this is impossible from the laws of physics and their engineering equations, and absolutely nothing in the patent description explains how this process would be performed.

I'm an Engineer and I don't think FE is impossible...

Free Energy is more a perceptual problem than a physics problem. Many claim a FE device must violate the Conservation of Energy already knowing it cannot be violated. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. The COE must hold therefore the supposed Engineers must be wrong and caught in a fallacy fallacy.
Quote
The fallacy fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It amounts to blaming science for there lack of understanding which is the weakest kind of argument anyone can make...

Quote
It is not enough to say "energy comes from spin" to explain anything. He could also have said "energy comes from the ZPE", or "energy comes from neutrinos", or "energy comes from LENR reactions" that it would be exactly the same thing: an impossibility to verify it, the assertion being irrefutable by lack of evidence.
Only facts or a rigorous theoretical description should trigger the analysis of a FE machine, since without facts or theory, there is nothing to analyze.
Having seen and tested a working FE device on my bench I would agree. By all appearances it's just a bunch of coils of wire, cores and switches configured in certain ways. There is literally no indication it should be COP>1 or what the real working principal is. As I told a friend, I could give you this device to test and you could spend a lifetime of testing never understanding how it actually works.  As you implied, we cannot see into the material or the internal atomic/molecular/field interactions thus the only way to determine what happens and why is through a solid scientific working theory.

As usual you summed up the nature of the problem pretty well.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
Conservation of Energy, which so many people like to quote as if it were Holy Scripture, applies to a closed system.

I don't believe in "free energy", but some form of energy conversion is not out of the question.

   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 94
Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed.

Taken at face value if something cannot be created, it cannot exist in the first place.



---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
Cadman
Quote
Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed.
Taken at face value if something cannot be created, it cannot exist in the first place.

Good point, and the alter ego is that energy has always existed and is perpetually transforming. If energy is transformed into matter is this not the creation of substance with respect to how we perceive things?. Thus there is no need for creation as most see it because how they see it is severely flawed, it's an illusion. In fact all the matter we know is only 1% material and 99% energy as EM fields.

As Feynman implies with his first principals, the COE is simply a concept based on a logical argument not a belief with no evidence to support it. Were simply asking a question, if something was created what was it created from?. It cannot be nothing because that is a direct contradiction therefore it must be something else. Not unlike free energy and we know the energy cannot be created from nothing therefore it must have come from somewhere or be a transformation of some kind.

Do you know where the extra energy comes from in a majority of FE devices?. As is often the case the answer was found in the place nobody had bothered to look. I found the extra energy came from the source and because most don't understand the concept of energy they never accounted for the total energy actually present in any given system. As many inventors claimed, the solution to the problem should have been obvious.

For example, according to most peoples logic nuclear energy should be impossible. They claim if the energy cannot be measured directly by often primitive means it cannot exist yet uranium has no measurable external energy and it cannot be burned like a cord of wood. Uranium was supposed to be a useless mostly inert substance which was worthless. It was only after they understood the power of the atom and energy transformations that they understood it's energy content and value.

As such free energy today is really no different than where nuclear energy was 100 years ago. It was never a matter of being possible or not, it was a matter of knowledge and understanding leading to workable technology. Think of it this way, 200 years ago almost everyone was 100% certain most of the technology we know today was impossible. I mean, planes, trains, automobiles, radio, cell phones, internet, AC power grids, incandescent lights and LED's. Everyone 200 years ago was absolutely certain almost everything we know was impossible and every generation has claimed they had it all figured out... obviously we are proof they didn't.

In some sense it's more of an ego problem isn't it?. I mean if every generation believes they understand everything yet there always proven wrong the facts speak for themselves don't they?. You see I'm not like most people and a presumption of my ignorance is my thing. I assume nothing and any given problem I walk into is addressed as if something was missed or overlooked and there's always something new to learn. I mean, if someone thinks they already knows everything then they cannot learn...because they already know everything, don't they?.

Regards
AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
Nikola Tesla once said:

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

All you need to do is get more energy from the environment...LOL!
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
F6FLT
I'm an Engineer and I don't think FE is impossible...

I too think that free or cheap energy is possible, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But this question is irrelevant to the debate.

Quote
Quote
The fallacy fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
It amounts to blaming science for there lack of understanding which is the weakest kind of argument anyone can make...

I don't know who you are quoting, not me anyway. I only asserted that as long as it is not proven true, it can be assumed to be false, according to Euclid's principle: "what is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
To deny an assertion given without proof is not more true or false than the assertion itself, which can be true, as well as its negation.
If the one who asserts the extraordinary thing does not provide any factual or logical element allowing to verify it, we can oppose him the sentence of Euclid, the burden of proof being only on his side.

Quote
Having seen and tested a working FE device on my bench I would agree. By all appearances it's just a bunch of coils of wire, cores and switches configured in certain ways...

I can't accept this objection, since it is a statement no more proven than Holcomb's.
The problem with FE is also that it is self-justifying by self-referencing from one subject to another that is no more proven to work than the first. To invalidate my sentence, all you have to do is present us with the evidence of a machine that works (and can therefore be duplicated by others), and I'll be happy to be wrong.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
@Grumpy

Beware of simple sentences, the devil is in the details. Of course energy can only be taken from our environment, our environment is the universe. But energy is not a physical object, unlike an atom or a photon.

Energy is the work of a force between two instants, that is to say allowing a physical situation at the beginning to be transformed into a different situation at the end, by providing a useful effect. Energy is not an intrinsic static thing, contrary to the way the general public uses the word in everyday language, but the dynamics of a transformation.
This energy will be free if either the obtaining of the starting situation and the passage to the other one are free, or if the price of the return to the starting situation can be "paid" by a natural process to be discovered.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2657


Buy me a beer
This is free energy in the making.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1020
This is free energy in the making.
...

I don't see free energy but pictures. What is your analysis?




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2657


Buy me a beer
I don't see free energy but pictures. What is your analysis?

Energy build up to a discharge point within a multitude of resonant points formed by millions of phases of the same frequency, nearly the same frequency as there is a very low frequency beat. This has been described by many as the wash board effect, or gyroscopic effect.

The influx of energy is coming from the environment. This is a highly capacitive system of electron extraction and forming ions between capacitive plates.

It is effectively working between the 9 and 10nm band, uv/X ray
tested by your French  nuclear company at a UK facility which they run.

A new one is being built using better materials as it gets hot and the dielectric breaks down over time.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
Can you show it powering an incandescent light bulb?
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
A new one is being built using better materials as it gets hot and the dielectric breaks down over time.

In these devices, I expect heating of the dielectrics if they are PVC or Silicone, so I use polyamide-imide coated magnet wire.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2657


Buy me a beer
In these devices, I expect heating of the dielectrics if they are PVC or Silicone, so I use polyamide-imide coated magnet wire.

Silicon rubber, 200c max.

1kw resistance load, normally 240v but running at around 170v. and just over 3.5amps. Just over a 3hr run and the dielectric was punctured causing a huge temperature rise and by by coils.
This was all done by 3rd party and I was not there. Now a new unit will be made but with a different insulation /dielectric.

I never ran it more than 30min. I'm worried about the emissions but told it is not hard X rays, this can be insulated.

Once the principle of operation is known it is not difficult to replicate

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1606
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2657


Buy me a beer
I don't see free energy but pictures. What is your analysis?

This is at 10ns showing the multiple phases, this is not complete as it is not fed back to increase the phase shifts, it keeps multiplying and why at the end of the day it seems to be DC, but really it is not.

Regards

Mike



---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 16
Silicon rubber, 200c max.

1kw resistance load, normally 240v but running at around 170v. and just over 3.5amps. Just over a 3hr run and the dielectric was punctured causing a huge temperature rise and by by coils.
This was all done by 3rd party and I was not there. Now a new unit will be made but with a different insulation /dielectric.

I never ran it more than 30min. I'm worried about the emissions but told it is not hard X rays, this can be insulated.

Once the principle of operation is known it is not difficult to replicate

Regards

Mike

Why use insulated wire at all? From what I know of your device voltages over 10 kV are not reached, if any 3 kV. Perhaps a built with non insulated wire and properly placed spacers to keep the rings und turns of wire together is a better approach. Then you can stream air through the empty spaces between to keep it cold.

Perhaps we should move this discussion over to the STEAP thread.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2657


Buy me a beer

Perhaps we should move this discussion over to the STEAP thread.

Yes, I only posted that because this thread is all free energy debate.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
Hey Mike, hope your feeling better.

Quote
This is at 10ns showing the multiple phases, this is not complete as it is not fed back to increase the phase shifts, it keeps multiplying and why at the end of the day it seems to be DC, but really it is not.

That's a pretty cool looking waveform and once a person gets to this point a lot of strange effects could occur. I solved SM's DC mystery a while back and as you know it's not what most imagined. What we call DC is just as it sounds, a Direct Current which does not alternate and nothing more is implied. More important it makes no reference to the source(s) other that there must be a motive force of some kind present.

I can let one cat out of the bag with respect to how your device and SM's relates to the others...

Most of these devices use a very similar process but the method of input and output changes. For example, if we had two of your devices pointed in opposite directions then alternated each device on/off we end up with an AC output. So we could imagine a DC pulse going down the wire and 10% is sent to another device and 90% shows up as output. The 10% fires the other device producing another DC pulse in the opposite direction and 10% is again redirected and again 90% shows up on the output as a push-pull configuration.

I didn't take this end of the technology very far because of the inherent dangers of a self-oscillating system. Imagine two of your devices on each side of a circle and each feeding forward parallel to the current. We now have a self-sustaining current loop with few if any restrictions. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand the dangers of a system with a nearly unrestrained current and frequency. I mean think about it, each unit showing a gain, each unit feeding forward in effect feeding each other. This is the kind of disaster SM described as pulling the nails out of the walls 30 feet away kind of scenario. It could produce hard X rays, high energy particles, massive magnetic fields, almost anything.

Some amateurs suggested I should build such a system and I turned them down for obvious reasons...

We should also understand these devices most men have built in the past and present are still very primitive conceptually. There is evidence to suggest that before mechanical/electronic switching they used material properties/plasma field effects to control the process. Similar to the work of Schappeller, Moray and the Correa's. In fact some of the oldest devices didn't even use coils of wire which is a fairly new man-made contrivance, there were no coils or switching devices...it's really mind bending stuff.

Regards
AC

 










---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3540
tExB=qr
I solved SM's DC mystery a while back...

ROFLMAO!!!
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-08-16, 14:04:56