90%+

[F6FLT]

I just came across this video, and it gave me some thoughts. I think this guy is making fun of us in a good way, and he's right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15V0gUXUPko

By dint of talking nonsense and regularly failing to produce FE, the free energy proponent looks like a complete idiot to competent people, and so does the free energy researcher until he changes his method.
The rejection of academic science and its method, the reasonable doubt of scepticism, and its replacement by the repetition of faith in FE, the acceptance of magical machines because their authors seem sincere, conspiracy theories, urban legends, even alien theories, is a total dead end.

I'd better present an original setup and talk technique, some will say? Especially since I have some. To talk technique, yes, but to whom? To the 90%+ of the FE movement who don't see any difference between a magnetron, for example, and absurd devices that never worked as claimed like Bearden's MEG, or who believe that Lenz's law can be circumvented with puerile setups? What would be the point? What would their analysis bring? They have no analysis but opinions. Or should I also pretend like them to have a revolutionary idea or claim abnormal results with a banal montage, to maintain the buzz, generate interest and laudatory but unfounded comments?

And don't tell me I'm negative. Wanting to introspect and draw conclusions from our failures is positive for progress. Continuing to present fiddlings that don't work as claimed, thinking you're a new Tesla, is negative.
What is positive would be the considerable strengthening of our demands for proof and the elimination of the 90%+ of nonsense claims and incompetents and parrots who ruin our business and make us look ridiculous and unsuccessful to the outside world, which is what the video shows and what we really are until the mindset changes.
The sectarian despotism of the 90%+ of FE believers against the 10%- of sceptics who challenge them and cannot be heard is to be fought. Faith has never produced machines or medicines. Technology has always come from sceptics and pragmatists, they are the only hope for FE, question of method.

[Hakasays]

First, we must be careful to avoid association fallacy.  Just because there are scammers online making fake videos for clicks doesn't mean every fringe science researcher is automatically a scammer.

But you are quite correct that much of the community is not very rigorous in their science.  Or at least not as much as they could be for a given skill level.

I think a good approach is to encourage the community to try and use more useful observations and measurements.
We should ask the right questions to encourage more detailed and rigorous observations and experiments.  It will help them better understand the principles they are working with.  As the angel of truth told Descartes: "the conquest of nature is to be achieved through number and measure".

The other aspect to improve I think is encouraging a principles-first approach.  To start with a hypothesis or mechanism-of-action and then to ask and explore how that principle or mechanism might be implemented and proven or falsified.  Again, encouraging rational induction+deduction based on what they may already know.

Without understanding the correct principles-of-operation for a given system, one will tend to have more failure than success.

Interestingly, Electroboom demonstrated this when attempting to build his first 'tesla coil' earlier this year.   (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJg9J81acY)
He was focused purely on transformer action and winding ratios, and without understanding the critical importance of the dielectric field component and system impedance in these coils, his results were subpar to say the least.   I happened to be experimenting with a single Tesla Extra coil that same morning so it was hilarious to see the results side-by-side

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

And don't tell me I'm negative. Wanting to introspect and draw conclusions from our failures is positive for progress. Continuing to present fiddlings that don't work as claimed, thinking you're a new Tesla, is negative.
What is positive would be the considerable strengthening of our demands for proof and the elimination of the 90%+ of nonsense claims and incompetents and parrots who ruin our business and make us look ridiculous and unsuccessful to the outside world, which is what the video shows and what we really are until the mindset changes.
The sectarian despotism of the 90%+ of FE believers against the 10%- of sceptics who challenge them and cannot be heard is to be fought. Faith has never produced machines or medicines. Technology has always come from sceptics and pragmatists, they are the only hope for FE, question of method.

I think it's important to look at the big picture...

So 90% of FE claims may be nonsense?.
-75% believe the Earth was created from nothing in a matter of days 6000 years ago.
-75% believe they are immortal and nobody actually dies.
-50% are cheating on there spouse and have substance abuse problems.
-75% of individuals cheat on there taxes.
-86% claim they know little or nothing about science.
-Oddly, if breaking any law makes someone a criminal over 99% of all people are criminals by definition.

Which begs the question, should we be worried about what others think considering the stats above?. I mean who are they to be judging anyone given the facts?.

So let's be honest, considering the real state of the world the FE community is on the low end of the crazy scale. The greater majority are pretty descent people just looking for answers...

AC

[partzman]

or who believe that Lenz's law can be circumvented with puerile setups? What would be the point? What would their analysis bring? They have no analysis but opinions. Or should I also pretend like them to have a revolutionary idea or claim abnormal results with a banal montage, to maintain the buzz, generate interest and laudatory but unfounded comments?

I have to believe that you are referring to me here as I'm the one pointing out the possibility of defeating Lenz with my "childish" setups with RLE.  I thought I had given a proper analysis but in the event I was misunderstood, let's take a look at the attached classical sim.

Here we have a HV version of a device that involves a constant current inductor L3 and a constant voltage source V1 and a transformer made up of L1 and L2 with a low k factor. 

L1 charges to ~135ma in the first 9us of the cycle and then discharges it's energy back to Vs and is seen to return to ~0ma at the end of the cycle at 17.993us.  From the plot math we see that the net input energy drawn from the supply Vs during this complete cycle is 700.34nJ. 

V1 is exposed to the clamp currents of L2 and L3 during the second half of the cycle and this results in an energy of 5.545uJ.

L3 starts the cycle at 100ma and ends the cycle at 103.18ma.  This results in a net energy gain of (.10318^2-.1^2)*.025/2 = 8.076uJ .

L2 starts the cycle at 100ma and ends at 45.09ma.  This results in a net energy loss of (.1^2-.04509^2)*.0015/2 = 5.975uJ .

Neglecting any additional losses in the switches and inductors which would actually show up on the gain side, we have an energy loss of 700.34e-9 + 5.975e-6 = 6.676uJ, and an energy gain of 5.545e-6 + 8.076e-6 = 13.621uJ resulting in an apparent COP = 13.621/6.676 = 2.04 .  Small numbers true, but it is the concept here that is important.

One may notice that there is no internal self-capacitance added to any of the inductors.  This is acceptable because there is a technique that eliminates these capacitances but that is for another time.

Regards,
Pm

[F6FLT]

...
So let's be honest, considering the real state of the world the FE community is on the low end of the crazy scale. The greater majority are pretty descent people just looking for answers...

AC

They are not looking for answers, they already have them.

Free energy, either they already have it, that's what they say, or if they don't have it, it's the fault of science and scientists who haven't understood anything, unlike the geniuses of FE who have understood everything and if it doesn't work, it's not their fault, it's because there are good reasons they invent and once solved, it will work, that's faith.

[F6FLT]

I have to believe that you are referring to me here as I'm the one pointing out the possibility of defeating Lenz with my "childish" setups with RLE.  I thought I had given a proper analysis but in the event I was misunderstood, let's take a look at the attached classical sim.
...

It's true that you dispute Lenz's law, but frankly, I wasn't thinking of you especially when I was talking about the 90%, because I know you are a skilled experimenter.

But physics goes beyond electronics. I would like to be wrong of course, but I know that Lenz's law is inviolable at least by such a simple device. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that the proof has to match the claim, and that only a self-sustaining closed system can justify talking "for sure" about a COP>2. The details of the measurements do not make the energy balance formula correct.
If your COP is > 2, as we are in electricity, not in thermal or mechanical systems where losses are high, looping such a system should be relatively easy.

[partzman]

It's true that you dispute Lenz's law, but frankly, I wasn't thinking of you especially when I was talking about the 90%, because I know you are a skilled experimenter.

But physics goes beyond electronics. I would like to be wrong of course, but I know that Lenz's law is inviolable at least by such a simple device. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that the proof has to match the claim, and that only a self-sustaining closed system can justify talking "for sure" about a COP>2. The details of the measurements do not make the energy balance formula correct.
If your COP is > 2, as we are in electricity, not in thermal or mechanical systems where losses are high, looping such a system should be relatively easy.

I would agree that measurements alone do not prove excess energy and that a self-running device is the only reliable proof.  Properly done measurements however should be able to indicate whether one is headed in the right direction or not.

Unfortunately, this device does not lend itself to self running because of the low energy levels.  I mean just the mosfet gate dissipation's would eat up the excess energy even when using resonant drive techniques.

Pm

[F6FLT]

I would agree that measurements alone do not prove excess energy and that a self-running device is the only reliable proof.  Properly done measurements however should be able to indicate whether one is headed in the right direction or not.

I agree. This is a good clue for the researcher.

Unfortunately, this device does not lend itself to self running because of the low energy levels.  I mean just the mosfet gate dissipation's would eat up the excess energy even when using resonant drive techniques.

Pm

When the levels are low, the precision of the measurements is less, and artefacts can become prevalent. So there is a lot of work to be done to improve the system to eliminate doubt. And in my experience, when you do that, that's when you notice the error.

[Hakasays]

I would agree that measurements alone do not prove excess energy and that a self-running device is the only reliable proof.  Properly done measurements however should be able to indicate whether one is headed in the right direction or not.

Unfortunately, this device does not lend itself to self running because of the low energy levels.  I mean just the mosfet gate dissipation's would eat up the excess energy even when using resonant drive techniques.

Pm

And in the end, the process probably won't be 'free' any more than solar power or wind or hydro power are all free.   It'll be gathering energy from some external source that is naturally replenished (whether you call it free electrons or aether or virtual photons or special relativity/etc).

[F6FLT]

@Hak

The working principles you list, most people agree, I think. But when we want to decline them in an operational method, or to put them into practice, the problems begin.

We see that it is useless, because faith is the strongest. If I present Lenz's law as a relativistic effect, which it also is, i.e. an effect related to the relative speed of moving charges, we understand that since it is relative, it does not depend on whether the charge is in the source circuit or in the load circuit, they influence each other. And nobody will object. But this will be ignored, and the next day you will find the same nonsense about Lenz's law. One prefers to believe in simple, pleasant and extraordinary things, than in more complicated, annoying, but real things.

In experimentation, it is the same. Moreover, the one who can help also has his own research, and it is not his job to do the basic checks that should precede any claim of OU or abnormal effect. It is exhausting but above all it is useless, because a mind who wants to believe is not open and that is why he has not made these elementary verifications. He does not challenge his own experiment.

Only the strict respect of the scientific method allows the working principles to be fruitful, but the scientific method, the 90%+ don't care about it, even fight it. So we have no rational method, anything can be asserted, the requirement of proof is frowned upon, the 90%+ want to believe in the OU or other miracle in their measurements. They think that in order to provide help, one should first believe in their stuff! Needless to say, the skeptic who asks for a little more evidence but could help, will end up being called a troublemaker and asked to go elsewhere.

[Hakasays]

If I present Lenz's law as a relativistic effect, which it also is, i.e. an effect related to the relative speed of moving charges, we understand that since it is relative, it does not depend on whether the charge is in the source circuit or in the load circuit, they influence each other. And nobody will object. But this will be ignored, and the next day you will find the same nonsense about Lenz's law. One prefers to believe in simple, pleasant and extraordinary things, than in more complicated, annoying, but real things.

A principle has more weight if we can describe conceptually what can be done with it, or how it might explain/model another credible system/observation.  Or if we could describe/model something apparently non-conservative using plain electrical engineering or physics formulas/concepts.

The more articulate we are and the more success we can demonstrate, the more people will begin to think using that mechanic/perspective, and the more ideas+experiments will emerge from it.


I am really curious about your relativistic interpretation of Lenz law and hope you articulate the potential ramifications and experiments that can be done with it sometime

[F6FLT]

A principle has more weight if we can describe conceptually what can be done with it, or how it might explain/model another credible system/observation.
...

If we do so-called "research", it means that we are no longer in the basics of physics but in more complicated things.

The problem is not in the concepts at the limit of what is known, but in the basics. Knowing the basics is the prerequisite to claim to do "research", and the basics are far from being mastered by those who claim to do research and get OU. How do they expect to distinguish new things if they ignore the mundane? They spend their time confusing the two and wasting everyone's time, especially those who can explain it to them and whom they often do not want to believe.

Helping with research, okay. But mastering the basics is not something you learn on a "research" forum. It's by reading courses, learning the basic laws of physics, and trying to understand without prejudice against science why they were established the way they were. If you come here pretending to do research and you don't understand the difference between force and work or don't know the definition of an electric field, or even what a field is as a general concept, like most of the 90%+, you don't belong in "research" but in tinkering, you have to go back to school.

[F6FLT]

...
I am really curious about your relativistic interpretation of Lenz law and hope you articulate the potential ramifications and experiments that can be done with it sometime

The compatibility of electromagnetism with special relativity was obviously a goal of Einstein, so it is not surprising that both theories work.

Both theories predict the same phenomena in experiments, only the explanations differ, not the effects. So there is no experiment to propose that would have different effects, and this is fortunate.

Relativity, from the point of view of understanding, not necessarily of calculation, is conceptually simpler and more direct, the effects between charges being reduced to the transformation of the coulombic field of one, seen in the frame of reference of the other, which makes obvious the reciprocity of the effects of electromagnetism, like Lenz's law.
This does not prevent the conservation of the notion of magnetic field to link relativity to classical electromagnetism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity .

Moreover, electromagnetism by relativity is the only one that is exact in the case of gravity, otherwise in curved space it is necessary to use modified Maxwell's equations.

[Hakasays]

Helping with research, okay. But mastering the basics is not something you learn on a "research" forum. It's by reading courses, learning the basic laws of physics, and trying to understand without prejudice against science why they were established the way they were. If you come here pretending to do research and you don't understand the difference between force and work or don't know the definition of an electric field, or even what a field is as a general concept, like most of the 90%+, you don't belong in "research" but in tinkering, you have to go back to school.

Everyone has different styles of learning.  For me, I read the books and saw the charts and formulas, but it didn't actually make sense practically until I started building things on the bench.  To see inductance and resonance firsthand and see how things like frequency affect transformer saturation.  I probably learned more practical skills in a week of tinkering than in a semester worth of physics.
An amateur can still be useful to the community too because they're actually building things.  Perhaps they will have an experiment you wanted to do but didn't have the time or components, or maybe they stumbled on a configuration that you never considered because on the surface it might seem nonsensical.

[Hakasays]

The compatibility of electromagnetism with special relativity was obviously a goal of Einstein, so it is not surprising that both theories work.

Both theories predict the same phenomena in experiments, only the explanations differ, not the effects. So there is no experiment to propose that would have different effects, and this is fortunate.

Relativity, from the point of view of understanding, not necessarily of calculation, is conceptually simpler and more direct, the effects between charges being reduced to the transformation of the coulombic field of one, seen in the frame of reference of the other, which makes obvious the reciprocity of the effects of electromagnetism, like Lenz's law.
This does not prevent the conservation of the notion of magnetic field to link relativity to classical electromagnetism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity .

Moreover, electromagnetism by relativity is the only one that is exact in the case of gravity, otherwise in curved space it is necessary to use modified Maxwell's equations.

It's also worth noting that the principles of special relativity have coexisted with aether models in the past.  Today there seems to be a battle, an either-or dichotomy, but the dichotomy doesn't really exist since the formulas largely stay the same.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

One fringe of SR I find interesting is that of mass.  That an electron has physical mass while a photon only has inertial mass.  The implication being that a solar cell turns massless energy into mass-energy, while an LED converts mass-energy (electrons) to massless energy (photons).   Leads to all kinds of interesting thought-experiments.

We should really start a deeper thread exploring the potential exploits and loopholes in this field.

[F6FLT]

Everyone has different styles of learning.  For me, I read the books and saw the charts and formulas, but it didn't actually make sense practically until I started building things on the bench.  To see inductance and resonance firsthand and see how things like frequency affect transformer saturation.  I probably learned more practical skills in a week of tinkering than in a semester worth of physics.

Tinkering certainly helps a little to understand the theories and laws of physics, but very little because it would require thousands of experiments, those done by the pioneers of physics from Galileo to Bohr via Ampere and Einstein. We would have to be as clever as they were in every field, as each one was in his own. No one has the time, the material means or the intellectual means.
If you limit yourself to tinkering without really studying the laws and theories of physics, you will understand almost nothing of your experiments.

That an electron has physical mass while a photon only has inertial mass.  The implication being that a solar cell turns massless energy into mass-energy...

I'm sorry, but what you say doesn't make sense to me. The mass/energy equivalence is strict, the only thing we can say for the photon is that it has no rest mass, and since it doesn't exist at rest, it's a truism. But it does have mass, gravitational as well as inertial, since it is deflected by stars, by the sun for example, or black holes.

An amateur can still be useful to the community too because they're actually building things.  Perhaps they will have an experiment you wanted to do but didn't have the time or components, or maybe they stumbled on a configuration that you never considered because on the surface it might seem nonsensical.

It is true. Amateurs are, for example, responsible for discoveries in astronomy or radio.
But how many discoverers are there? Well under 10%. Much less than 0.01%. And what proportion of physics is due to them? Even less!

It is pretentiousness to think that the tinkerer in his garage, with whom we can identify, will revolutionise the laws of physics. Even Tesla, who was not a tinkerer in his garage but a highly competent engineer, contributed a lot to electrical engineering, but nothing or almost nothing to physics. Tesla's law does not exist in physics.
So the tinkerer in his garage hoping to find "loopholes" in physics, let me laugh. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it would take a luck of the devil, and that millions of more qualified and curious people, including a majority of academic scientists, would have a much better chance than him to discover them.
We are here to try this chance, but let's not be so ridiculous as to believe that we would have assets when we only have handicaps, starting for the 90%+ with ignorance of physics.

[Grumpy]

The academic who never looks for "free energy" will need the Devil's Luck to find it.

What will happen is that a tenacious person of limited skill will find something (like Faraday), and academics (like Maxwell) will explain how it really works.

This is already happening with Centraflow's device.

[F6FLT]

The academic who never looks for "free energy" will need the Devil's Luck to find it.

What a strange idea! They are looking for every possible way to produce energy. But unlike the free energy researcher, they are able to exploit what they find. And if it's not completely free, like wind or solar, they still use it, and it works. And fortunately, otherwise if we had to rely only on FE researchers, we wouldn't have electricity yet.

What will happen is that a tenacious person of limited skill will find something (like Faraday), and academics (like Maxwell) will explain how it really works.

This is already happening with Centraflow's device.

Your fairy tale, we'll talk about it when households no longer need to be connected to the power grid.
Get real, Grumpy!

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

Tinkering certainly helps a little to understand the theories and laws of physics, but very little because it would require thousands of experiments, those done by the pioneers of physics from Galileo to Bohr via Ampere and Einstein. We would have to be as clever as they were in every field, as each one was in his own. No one has the time, the material means or the intellectual means.
If you limit yourself to tinkering without really studying the laws and theories of physics, you will understand almost nothing of your experiments.

Your post sounds like your have never even read the original works of any of the scientists you speak of. I liked Faraday's literature because we was really curious, quirky/flaky and an avid tinkerer. He even spoke of anti-gravity and supposed they would solve the problem in his lifetime. Faraday also took a keen interest in the ancient Sanskrit texts like Tesla and many others at the time and believed it contained scientific knowledge. As well, he all but admitted he stumbled onto the process of induction while tinkering in his lab. The old, I wonder what would happen if I do this scenario.

In fact all that was ever required to discover anything new was curiosity and the desire to find an answer to a question. Like Faraday, I have this coil and it has this strange field, I wonder if said field could effect other things nearby like another coil... wala induction. Nobody should believe the nonsensical story that he studied physics/equations for years, deducing every conceivable cause and effect which led him to this single experiment. He was tinkering with everything to learn how stuff works and his experiment happened to work out.

I have also had many experiments concerning FE which happened to work out. Nothing was ever planned and it always started with an idea or question with no clear answer. In fact the only reason I did the experiment was because I had no idea what would happen, it was an enigma. I knew X should happen, I also knew Y should happen, however Y contradicts X. It was an enigma because the result should be XY or nothing and both results seem to contradict conventional wisdom. Sometimes a discovery can be that easy and it starts with an ambiguous question with no clear answer...

AC

[Hakasays]

I'm sorry, but what you say doesn't make sense to me. The mass/energy equivalence is strict, the only thing we can say for the photon is that it has no rest mass, and since it doesn't exist at rest, it's a truism. But it does have mass, gravitational as well as inertial, since it is deflected by stars, by the sun for example, or black holes.

If I'm not mistaken, the consensus view is that:
* electrons have both inertial and gravitational mass, and can only approach C in any given system.
* photons have inertial mass but no gravitational mass, and travel at C in a given system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/active-gravitational-mass-of-the-electron

The apparent fallacy appears to be that inertial and gravitational mass are treated as equivalent, even though they have different properties.

If we also assume that gravity propagates at exactly C, we start to see asymmetries that can arise from this.  Like photons that only emit gravity waves in one direction.  And in the case of electrical circuits, we arrive with an apparent 2-way exchange between inertial mass and gravitational mass (albeit extremely small-scale).

(Note: I bear no attachment to these views or induction personally, I'm just exploring the limits and logic of the model as it is presented to me. )

[Grumpy]

What a strange idea! They are looking for every possible way to produce energy. But unlike the free energy researcher, they are able to exploit what they find. And if it's not completely free, like wind or solar, they still use it, and it works. And fortunately, otherwise if we had to rely only on FE researchers, we wouldn't have electricity yet.

Your fairy tale, we'll talk about it when households no longer need to be connected to the power grid.
Get real, Grumpy!

If "they" were looking at every possible way to produce energy, we would not be having this conversation.  They only look at ways that receive the necessary funding, like fusion.

It's you that should "get real".  The reality of FE is passing you by because you decided that free energy cannot exist, and won't take the risk of believing the claims of a non-peer-reviewed engineer.

Centraflow built more than one device the produced more energy than supplied, hundreds of watts with only a few milliwatts input.  The device is reproducible, scalable, and as real as a solar panel or battery.

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
Your post sounds like your have never even read the original works of any of the scientists you speak of.
...

I rarely see a post from you without you sharing your beliefs about what those you are responding to would or would not understand, would or would not know, would or would not read...
In addition to the unfounded content, this practice is a bit annoying and pretentious (you don't know anything about me, contrary to what you imagine). For me it is background noise. I don't intend to reply to posts that start like that anymore, no point. My person is not the subject.

[F6FLT]

If "they" were looking at every possible way to produce energy, we would not be having this conversation.
...

Seriously, you think the energy problem is so simple that if scientists had already started working on it, they would have found a trick for free energy by now?

No one finds the trick because, quite simply, the problem is complex. You only think that everything is possible when you know nothing about a question, that's the case of the neophyte. Then the neophyte who progresses because he learns, becomes disillusioned, and understands that things are not as simple as he thought. The problem is to remain a neophyte who does not learn anything.

[Grumpy]

Seriously, you think the energy problem is so simple that if scientists had already started working on it, they would have found a trick for free energy by now?

No one finds the trick because, quite simply, the problem is complex. You only think that everything is possible when you know nothing about a question, that's the case of the neophyte. Then the neophyte who progresses because he learns, becomes disillusioned, and understands that things are not as simple as he thought. The problem is to remain a neophyte who does not learn anything.

Do we have working fusion reactors now?  Are we any more disillusioned than those scientist who work on fusion reactors?

I provided Centraflow my contact information and signed his NDA.  I am not disillusioned, I am learning from him and others like him who believed the TPU was a real working FE device.

[F6FLT]

Do we have working fusion reactors now?
...

Non sequitur.