Principles of Operation

[Hakasays]

I believe it's crucially important for any system to have a working principle of operation, as it's the only way that a device can be reliably replicated and improved.
This does not necessarily mean pages of mathematics, that can come later (as it did with steam power and electrical engineering and others).

I thought I'd start a thread covering just principles of operation for anything in the modern world.  1-2 sentences, as broad and simple as possible.

Anyone can post anything here, just try to keep to 1-2 sentences and cover any critical factors required for the process to work.

It can be any conventional or overunity system.



    Internal Combustion
Hot gas of combustion exerts a pressure that can force a piston to move in a cylinder, performing useful work.

Critical factors: combustible fuel, oxygen, compression, ignition, and timing.




   Diesel Combustion
Combustible fuel is injected at high pressure+temperature will autoignite, relieving the need for manual ignition and improving overall efficiency.

Critical factors: Internal combustion, plus higher compression, auto ignitable fuel, and high-pressure injection.

[Chet K]

Sir
Regarding ICE ( internal Combustion Engine)
There is an experiment on the board ( Tommy Reeds Bench at Stefan's open source forum) which claims
to alter the temperature at which thermolysis takes place in water!

The catalyst for this is lithium nitrate at 20 ppm in water at 500 psi
Runs an ICE as per Sam Leaches modified engines  from many years ago .

Tom is approaching this experiment (and many others) with a static pressure chamber !
He is presently working out of town for perhaps another month , but anxious to get to these
experiments!
Story of claim below !

Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
The below screen shot was part of a Tom Bearden memorial topic
Started by member AllCanadian when Bearden passed !

[Hakasays]

Regarding ICE ( internal Combustion Engine)
There is an experiment on the board ( Tommy Reeds Bench at Stefan's open source forum) which claims
to alter the temperature at which thermolysis takes place in water!

Therefore (whether it works or not):

   Tommy Reed, Exotic internal combustion
Certain chemicals can cause thermolysis breakdown of water at high pressures without added energy.

Critical factors: 500psi+, lithium nitrate catalyst.

[Jerry Volland]

That's a respectable amount of pressure.  The one Thomas Edison discovered is that accetylene will dissolve into acetone at 200 atmospheres pressure.  Water burns like petrol when one oz of the green liquid is added to a gallon of water.  He demonstrated the liquid, then offered $50,000 to anyone who could figure it out.  No one could, so he finally just published the formula.

_____

Raise my species or I'll raise it myself - Renaissance Man

[Chet K]

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Engineering/Download/8688

Above link provided by member matu at Stefan's
It provides a principle of operation of Figuera patent
With examples (math and ...

Post #1362 here
https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg570004/#new

Chet

[F6FLT]

Figuera's patent analysis is very interesting as it provides a theoretical foundation.
However, it has a weak point, which is the explanation of the intensity of the effect, which is directly proportional to the density of ions in the air.

The author tells us: "the ion density of the atmosphere is 4*10²⁵ electrons/m3, gave us 3*10¹⁰ C/s that may be collected."
The ion density of the atmosphere depends on the altitude and I don't know where the author gets this value which seems to me very overestimated.

I can't find recent values, but in the attached table of a study from the 1970s, we see that this density is less than 500 ions/cm3 below an altitude of 2 Km, or 5*10⁸ ions/m3. This is far from the stated value of 4*10²⁵, it is one millionth of a billionth of this value.
Then there are positive and negative ions, and I do not see how to recover one without the other, which would cancel the effect.

[Smudge]

Maybe the author used the atom/molecular density, he did refer to the necessity for an effective single turn high voltage in order to ionise the air, so it is not using the natural ions.

Smudge

[Centraflow]

Maybe the author used the atom/molecular density, he did refer to the necessity for an effective single turn high voltage in order to ionise the air, so it is not using the natural ions.

Smudge

I would expect it to use both, and additive.

Regards

Mike

[F6FLT]

What is the point of producing ions, if it is to recover them later when we had them from the start?

[Hakasays]

Then there are positive and negative ions, and I do not see how to recover one without the other, which would cancel the effect.

Recently came across pic attached, seemed somewhat relevant.   A thermionic valve also comes to mind.

What is the point of producing ions, if it is to recover them later when we had them from the start?

Since we're hunting for principles of operation, I would start by asking what properties do ions have that an equivalent low-voltage solid-state circuit does not?

Ions are affected by electric as well as magnetic fields, and they possess inertia.  Then we compare that to an equivalent LC circuit on a breadboard.

[Centraflow]

What is the point of producing ions, if it is to recover them later when we had them from the start?

To seed further capture, apples for apples, oranges for oranges, that is how I see it. The medium has to be correct.

Regards

Mike

[Hakasays]

To seed further capture, apples for apples, oranges for oranges, that is how I see it. The medium has to be correct.

Reminds me of this.  Though there would have to be some kind of asymmetric cycling action going on in order to maintain the suck.

[Centraflow]

Reminds me of this.  Though there would have to be some kind of asymmetric cycling action going on in order to maintain the suck.

STEAP is Asymmetrical, there are different resonant points which move.

Regards

Mike

[Grumpy]

Here is a moving charge sensor.  Might prove helpful...

http://www2.ece.rochester.edu/~jones/demos/ahern.html

What distinguishes Ahern's instrument from other charge detection and measurement apparatuses used in electrostatics demonstrations, such as the conventional leaf electroscope and the tonal electrostatic voltmeter, is that Ahern's device responds to the movement of positive (+) and negative (-) electric charge toward or away from a sensing electrode.

The instrument is much more sensitive than most hand-held charge detectors. During demonstrations of electrostatic phenomena -- for example, triboelectrification -- the moving charge sensor can be used to sense the charge and to determine its sign.

[Chet K]

Here is a moving charge sensor.  Might prove helpful...

http://www2.ece.rochester.edu/~jones/demos/ahern.html

What distinguishes Ahern's instrument from other charge detection and measurement apparatuses used in electrostatics demonstrations, such as the conventional leaf electroscope and the tonal electrostatic voltmeter, is that Ahern's device responds to the movement of positive (+) and negative (-) electric charge toward or away from a sensing electrode.

The instrument is much more sensitive than most hand-held charge detectors. During demonstrations of electrostatic phenomena -- for example, triboelectrification -- the moving charge sensor can be used to sense the charge and to determine its sign.

Grumpy
Would seem a "must have " for harvesting experiments!

Very cool indeed !!

[Centraflow]

Here is a moving charge sensor.  Might prove helpful...

http://www2.ece.rochester.edu/~jones/demos/ahern.html

What distinguishes Ahern's instrument from other charge detection and measurement apparatuses used in electrostatics demonstrations, such as the conventional leaf electroscope and the tonal electrostatic voltmeter, is that Ahern's device responds to the movement of positive (+) and negative (-) electric charge toward or away from a sensing electrode.

The instrument is much more sensitive than most hand-held charge detectors. During demonstrations of electrostatic phenomena -- for example, triboelectrification -- the moving charge sensor can be used to sense the charge and to determine its sign.

How cleverly simple

Regards

Mike

[Hakasays]

(Posted in the 'Aether and Science' thread but I think it more appropriate to respond here)

It's crazy how many overunity specialists tell us how to get free energy, without ever showing us a proof of concept with a device they have built. Some don't build anything, others are competent but not in FE, they build setups with beautiful red and blue coils but we don't see any particular effect.

There's always the possibility that someone can stumble onto something that works without being well-understood, even by the inventor.  Damascus swordsmiths of the 17th century were making swords with carbon nanotubes that weren't officially discovered until hundreds of years later.
(see:  https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/carbon-nanotechnology-in-an-17th-century-damascus-sword)

There's also the opposite possibility, someone may have a perfectly viable theory or principle that is not capable of implementing it.  Probably everyone here could explain in great detail how an internal combustion engine works, but only a tiny fraction of us would actually be able to build one.



That said, there is a lot of fluff and flak and distraction that does demand some strategy for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I've narrowed my strategy to the following:

* Do they show or describe a principle of operation, or at least some operating parameters of how it functions?   Just showing a spinning motor, even if it's real, tells us basically nothing about how it works.
   Real or fake, no engineerable details = useless to our work.

* Do they use articulate language/equipment/math?   Someone using words like impedance and reactance correctly demonstrates depth of knowledge in the field.   I'd trust someone making VNA plots over someone using a pair of dollar-store multimeters.

* Do they actually build things?   (Armchair engineers)   You can't really be a car mechanic unless you actually work on cars.

[F6FLT]

...
There's always the possibility that someone can stumble onto something that works without being well-understood, even by the inventor.

I am well aware of this. But this one knows what he has built and can explain to others how to build the same thing.
And before that, he should present what he has done to third parties who can measure the effects. Then even the skeptics will be convinced.

We are in the 19th century, electric motors do not yet exist. It was enough for Oersted, who did not understand the principle of the effect he was observing, to show that a current in a wire near a compass could deflect the compass needle, and everyone understood that an electric motor was now possible. There is no need for more.

There's also the opposite possibility, someone may have a perfectly viable theory or principle that is not capable of implementing it.  Probably everyone here could explain in great detail how an internal combustion engine works, but only a tiny fraction of us would actually be able to build one.

Contrary to the "overunity", the explosion engines did not question the knowledge of the time. They were in the continuity of the first steam engines of the 18th century, so they could be analyzed with the known physical principles and engineering tools.
When this is no longer the case, when a theory contradicts what is known, then a proof of concept is required, a simple experiment showing the claimed new effect, such as overunity.

This is what Vedmedenko has just done recently by showing us the 2 spherical magnets that go up in the test tubes when you rotate them. No need for more.
This is what those who claim to have free energy or who claim to know how to have it, are unable to do, simply because they don't have it and don't know how to have it.

That said, there is a lot of fluff and flak and distraction that does demand some strategy for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I've narrowed my strategy to the following:

* Do they show or describe a principle of operation, or at least some operating parameters of how it functions?   Just showing a spinning motor, even if it's real, tells us basically nothing about how it works.
   Real or fake, no engineerable details = useless to our work.

* Do they use articulate language/equipment/math?   Someone using words like impedance and reactance correctly demonstrates depth of knowledge in the field.   I'd trust someone making VNA plots over someone using a pair of dollar-store multimeters.

* Do they actually build things?   (Armchair engineers)   You can't really be a car mechanic unless you actually work on cars.

I agree.   

[Allcanadian]

Hakasays

* Do they show or describe a principle of operation, or at least some operating parameters of how it functions?   Just showing a spinning motor, even if it's real, tells us basically nothing about how it works.
Real or fake, no engineerable details = useless to our work.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." ― Albert Einstein

* Do they use articulate language/equipment/math?   Someone using words like impedance and reactance correctly demonstrates depth of knowledge in the field.   I'd trust someone making VNA plots over someone using a pair of dollar-store multimeters.

"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, 'Is it reasonable?'" -- Richard Feynman

* Do they actually build things?   (Armchair engineers) You can't really be a car mechanic unless you actually work on cars.

I agree, however I would never underestimate a good idea...

Regards
AC

[Hakasays]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." ― Albert Einstein

Don't get me wrong, I do love the wild crazy conspiracy stories  too.   "Tom Bearden and the Soviet scalar wave conspiracy" or David Wilcock's adventures visiting Avians through the Stargates on Mars.    Their unbridled creativity can often inspire real inventions and innovations.

But I try to not confuse them with the principled scientific/engineering approach that will actually get us to sci-fi world.

[Allcanadian]

Hakasays

Don't get me wrong, I do love the wild crazy conspiracy stories  too.   "Tom Bearden and the Soviet scalar wave conspiracy" or David Wilcock's adventures visiting Avians through the Stargates on Mars.    Their unbridled creativity can often inspire real inventions and innovations.

But I try to not confuse them with the principled scientific/engineering approach that will actually get us to sci-fi world.

That's not what I was referring to as an imagination and I don't think Einstein was either.

We could think of the different roles we play this way...
1)Science: A person discovers that an RF signal in a wire can be transmitted a distance to a receiver. This is a discovery and it's considered science not invention or engineering. To my knowledge we cannot patent a scientific discovery.

2)Invention: Another person reads about the discovery and "imagines" the signals could carry information leading to countless industries like morse code, radio, video, internet. This is the process of invention and not science or engineering. To be clear, the idea came from the inventors mind/imagination as a consequence of past scientific discoveries. As we know from the past a single new idea/invention can destroy entire industries overnight, that's real power.

3)Engineering: Finally after all the discoveries are made and uses invented an engineer takes what was learned and helps design practical applications for the technology. I know this as an Engineer because we never get to have any fun at work. Everything is by the book, 100% proven and triple checked for safety/reliability/liability. Nobody is discovering or inventing anything, that's not our job as Engineers.

Regards
AC

[Hakasays]

1)Science: A person discovers that an RF signal in a wire can be transmitted a distance to a receiver. This is a discovery and it's considered science not invention or engineering. 2)Invention: Another person reads about the discovery and "imagines" the signals could carry information leading to countless industries like morse code, radio, video, internet.
3)Engineering: Finally after all the discoveries are made and uses invented an engineer takes what was learned and helps design practical applications for the technology.

The great electrical engineers of the 19th century seemed to usually have a foot in all three.

That's not what I was referring to as an imagination and I don't think Einstein was either.

My mistake.  I was referring to imagination as it specifically relates to the fringe sciences.

[F6FLT]

In the 19th century, electrical engineering was rudimentary because the principles were not or poorly established.
The engineer is normally one who applies known formulas to obtain useful products.

In the field of electromagnetism, the 19th century, especially in the first half, is much more the century of science than of engineering, and the roles were not mixed. Fortunately. A good engineer does not make a good physicist, the way of thinking is not at all the same. If you're an engineer and you're talking to physicists, you'll have to be much more careful in your assertions, or you'll have them confront you with your inconsistencies. It took me a while to be able to talk to scientists without them throwing me off too much.

Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful. He failed in the transmission of energy at a distance because his theoretical ideas against those of Maxwell were wrong.
If from him we have some echoes of extravagant hypotheses, taken up by ignorant people who take him for an omniscient, he did not formalize any of them, undoubtedly he understood the difficulty of improvising as a physicist and of producing a coherent theory.
Tesla's remarkable patents will be remembered, but no theory of physics.

[Vasik041]

In the 19th century, electrical engineering was rudimentary because the principles were not or poorly established.
The engineer is normally one who applies known formulas to obtain useful products.

In the field of electromagnetism, the 19th century, especially in the first half, is much more the century of science than of engineering, and the roles were not mixed. Fortunately. A good engineer does not make a good physicist, the way of thinking is not at all the same. If you're an engineer and you're talking to physicists, you'll have to be much more careful in your assertions, or you'll have them confront you with your inconsistencies. It took me a while to be able to talk to scientists without them throwing me off too much.

Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful. He failed in the transmission of energy at a distance because his theoretical ideas against those of Maxwell were wrong.
If from him we have some echoes of extravagant hypotheses, taken up by ignorant people who take him for an omniscient, he did not formalize any of them, undoubtedly he understood the difficulty of improvising as a physicist and of producing a coherent theory.
Tesla's remarkable patents will be remembered, but no theory of physics.

Shame on you F6FLT for such words about Nikola Tesla

[Hakasays]

Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful.

I find these pompous declarations hilarious .
Just because you've failed in your own efforts does not mean Tesla and others have as well.