Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tswift View Post
    In your experience, how important is low ground impedance to producing effects? I have been doing testing with two grounds, one the utility grid ground and one standard 8' ground rod I drove. I measured the resistance between them and was quite disheartened to get around 200 ohms (using the analog meter). I noticed some visible soil void around the one I installed, so I poured some water down it. This got it down to 100 ohms, which still doesn't sound very good. Unfortunately, I have soil with distinct limestone rock layers and driving a ground rod is an adventure. You might get lucky and have one that goes full depth, or you might be able to pound it through some thinner rocks, but if you hit a thick slab you're out of luck. I installed a really quality ground once by digging a foot-wide hole over six feet deep and backfilling it with sodium sulfate salt. This was a huge amount of work and I'm not anxious to repeat it if I can avoid it....
    Hi tswift,
    you could use ground plate for grounding

    https://ontario.nedco.ca/ground-rod-...B06154.hybris2

    it is much easy to burry them in your type of soil then drive a ground rod...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wistiti View Post
      Hi tswift,
      you could use ground plate for grounding

      https://ontario.nedco.ca/ground-rod-...B06154.hybris2

      it is much easy to burry them in your type of soil then drive a ground rod...
      Yes, or even an old radiator like Kapanadze! I might try it, we'll see. It would be easier if I had a backhoe....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dragon View Post
        Lets say you have a huge monster cable running through your yard that has hundreds of amps flowing through it. It spans the world, so in order to see a true potential difference you would need to have one probe in Mexico and the other in Canada. So when you stick 2 little "pins" in the ground with a small distance what is the best you can expect to see? Let's say we have a battery circuit, the battery represents the telluric source, the positive runs a few feet down the line and is connected to a load ( resistance) then back to the source. Our position is somewhere between the positive and load. If we tap 2 points on that line will we measure any voltage? Nope, nothing... at least not until you reach a point that resistance in the line causes a voltage difference.... but we can tap that line with a lower resistance line and extract the current flow - a shared current flow. If you have a 100 amp flow on the line and you add a second line of equal resistance then you have 2 lines flowing 50 amps. Splitting the positive or negative as it were.
        Actually that makes sense, I think I understand what you mean. Have you ever found that the earth current thus tapped seems to produce a power gain on going through a transformer?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by dragon View Post
          .. but we can tap that line with a lower resistance line and extract the current flow - a shared current flow. If you have a 100 amp flow on the line and you add a second line of equal resistance then you have 2 lines flowing 50 amps. Splitting the positive or negative as it were.

          The solenoid formula's use amp/turns to determine magnetic flux - voltage plays no part initially. A simple make 'n break circuit, solenoid, connected to the 2 grounds can create an active magnetic circuit. As long as the secondary line's (above ground) resistance is lower than the source line (ground) current will flow... large low resistance wire is the key.
          .
          So if one's circuit's resistance is like 1/10th of the earth's original resistance path.. you're like shunting the current into your circuit?.. interesting!

          is there a number or a constant telluric current rate? or is it largely fluctuating?

          on areas with Single wire earth return. would it be legal to do this?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return
          Last edited by ricards; 05-02-2017, 03:58 AM. Reason: add

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tswift View Post
            Actually that makes sense, I think I understand what you mean. Have you ever found that the earth current thus tapped seems to produce a power gain on going through a transformer?
            The energy that's there is free... so the question becomes, how can you take what's there and enhance it?

            Fig 3 in the patent shows the formation of a current loop on the lower windings - how would that affect the magnetic field in the transformer core? I'd say it raises current to it's maximum potential which increases the field in the core and is reflected on the output windings.

            From there it's a question of how much energy is needed to drive the impulse to bring the transformer into resonance.

            I found the patent interesting and quite informative in its simplistic form so I thought it would be of interest to others as well.

            Comment


            • My is again plagiarized

              This patent plagiarizes my work. My patent clearly predates it...

              http://www.radio-ionics.com/pdf/US7800286.pdf

              -Bruce P.


              Originally posted by tswift View Post
              Good find! On a first reading, it appears to me as if the same principle is at work as in the Don Smith devices, the thing I've been trying to understand and generally calling "phase conjugate" electricity. The energy coming up from earth in response to a high voltage is characteristically different from normal electricity, and when you put it through a transformer interesting things happen. In the patent they use both natural atmospheric energy, and then give it a boost with a high voltage spark system. I think either natural or assisted the energy works the same way. This is essentially Don's demonstration of zapping the capacitor with the handheld Tesla coil all over again, and the collecting coil is between the capacitor and ground as I mentioned several posts back.

              I note they don't give any performance or power characteristics in the patent, it wouldn't surprise me if a system like this could generate kilowatts with minimal input. Also the coiled extendable ground radial system is quite interesting. Dragon, is this system at all similar to your own ground energy collector?

              Comment


              • Is this what phase conjugate electricity looks like in a scope?

                Originally posted by tswift View Post
                Good find! On a first reading, it appears to me as if the same principle is at work as in the Don Smith devices, the thing I've been trying to understand and generally calling "phase conjugate" electricity.

                ...snip
                Is this what phase conjugate electricity looks like in a scope?


                Generated by this simulation ...
                https://is.gd/phasecon

                ... within LTSpice?

                Comment


                • F.Y.I.

                  Hi Radioionics;

                  Your quote "This patent plagiarizes my work. My patent clearly predates it...", if you are referring to patent US9564268B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9564268B2/en, then please forgive me but I do not see any relation between your US7800286 and the above???

                  Your patent appears to be more related to some of Farnsworth's patents of the late '20s, 1930s and '40s IMHO. (Farnsworth - the inventor of television).

                  Also, in studying Farnsworth's work I note some interesting, what might be, references to overunity; for example his US2071516A. I'm finding many of his earlier patents to be quite interesting and informative.

                  https://www.google.com/patents/US207...p1DLwQ6AEIIjAA

                  Having nearly completed an analysis of the Ruslan, et al, traveling wave approach; the multipaction phenomenon might also be related, and/or a separate method.


                  FIN

                  Comment


                  • Conjugate's

                    F.Y.I

                    Possible initial aids in gaining a further appreciation of phase conjugation
                    might be to also study RF circuit matching - using a Smith Chart and a complex
                    conjucate matching network [plot the line/source impedance; then follow
                    the "real" line on the chart to the opposite (conjugate) place on the capacitive
                    or inductive half of the chart (upper or lower half).

                    Another possible insight might be to look into the phase conjugate optics arena -
                    Some links that might be of value:

                    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27b...9769af8f7d.pdf
                    https://www.institut-langevin.espci....etic_waves.pdf
                    http://www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/C...EN/B1167_6.HTM

                    And; Analysis of the Coupling Coefficient in Inductive Energy Transfer Systems:

                    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/apec/2014/951624/

                    Quote
                    "6. Conclusions
                    In this paper, the coupling coefficient between two coplanar and coaxial coils was analyzed as a function of the separation distance. We derived an equation for the mutual inductance from Neumann’s equation which can be used to estimate the coupling coefficient between the coils. In order to derive the equation, we used a power series approximation for the solution of the elliptic integrals, which is usually calculated by numerical integration. The derived equation presented good accuracy when compared to simulation results. The experimental results demonstrated the limitation of the presented equation, as it can only be used for coil geometries and properties that do not lead the solution of the elliptic integral of the first kind to infinity.
                    The analysis presented here is useful for inductive link systems where the distance between the coils is not constant. By predicting the behavior of the coupling coefficient as a function of the variable distance, it is possible to devise a simple mechanism capable of locking the system efficiency at a desired level despite variations in the relative position of the source and load."


                    As previously mentioned in other posts - note equations with "double integrals."

                    FIN
                    Last edited by Solarlab; 05-13-2017, 07:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Vinyasi View Post


                      Is this what phase conjugate electricity looks like in a scope?
                      No, you wouldn't be able to tell by looking at a scope trace. Essentially the phenomenon of phase conjugation, as I'm referring to it here, means time reversal. The electrons, or other charge carriers in the circuit, act as if their own local sense of time is backwards to the rest of the universe. Think of Einstein's famous thought experiment of riding along with a beam of light, watching the hands of a clock. The clock would appear to have stopped. Time dilation in relativistic physics is a well-known and well-studied phenomenon. Certainly we know from this that the rate of passage of time can be different for different observers, so it's not a big stretch to take the physics even farther and postulate that since the laws of electrodynamics are time-symmetric, there is a dual component to all electricity. There is a normal, familiar, time-forward action. There is an equal and opposite time-reversed reaction by the rest of the universe trying to restore equilibrium whenever you "disturb ambient", as Don would have put it. There is no way to tell which is which by looking at an oscilloscope or a meter because both are carried by electrons. They only differ in this "character", where one acts as if it's exactly backwards to everything normal. Many experimenters have seen it manifest in some way or other, where things start going weird and all of a sudden the normal laws no longer apply. This is the famous "cold electricity". It's already everywhere, but the trick is to collect and convert it separately from the normal "hot electricity" component.

                      Here are a few of the characteristics normally associated with this form of energy:

                      -it can power loads but certain things run cold instead of hot.
                      -it propagates in reverse from the output of a circuit back to the input.
                      -it develops more power in high impedance circuits, not low.

                      My theory is (and it is of course just a theory at this point) that all this happens because it's actually moving backwards in TIME. The real problem is not that we don't adequately understand electricity: the real problem is that we don't adequately understand time. Is this time reversal really happening in some sense, or is it merely apparent? If it is really happening then our concept of a linear time moving uniformly from "past" to "future" is not at all a picture of reality. Of course, we already know from relativity that concepts like simultaneity and causality aren't as clear-cut as we once thought either.

                      There are no current math models or computer programs capable of simulating it, because all the programs are using incorrect physics. It's like the difference between Newtonian physics and relativistic physics. In the normal case of low relative velocities they are equivalent, but start to diverge under special conditions. As energy researchers, we are trying to understand and dial in on the exact conditions that produce and enhance this phenomenon. Ultimately, folks better at theory than me will come along and give us some new and improved theories that will eventually allow us to model overunity systems, but I'm not even going to speculate how long that will take. Right now we don't even have a reliably reproducible working model.

                      As I have said before in this forum, once I have a working prototype device that can be reproduced, I will publish details for it, and a "proposed theory" of the physics behind it. I think if mainstream scientists have at least some theory they can grasp in familiar terms they can understand, it will go a long way toward eventual acceptance by science. So far, like Edison, I know a whole bunch of ways that do not work. But I have seen enough hints to know that it is not fiction, and that I'm on the right track to eventual success. Perhaps some other dedicated person will beat me to it, and that would also be OK with me.

                      Comment


                      • F.Y.I.

                        Hi tswift,

                        You present some interesting, thought provoking, information and postulation.

                        Another approach that you may find of value is found in Vasiliev's "Electricity
                        and Unusual Features
                        " book of 2015 (attached in a translated .pdf format).

                        He attributes the anomalies you mention to the Positron [+], it might be considered
                        the opposite, or conjugate, or antiparticle to the Electron [-] and he provides some interesting
                        evidence and observations.

                        Anyway, have a look...

                        FIN
                        Attached Files
                        Last edited by Solarlab; 05-14-2017, 12:03 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Really? Are you serious? Then, you haven't read it carefully. The description clearly shows my work predates the patent in question.

                          "Said modification can also be utilized without the use of the radioactive substance 4, if the input source has enough energy to excite the vapor or gas into its electrically conductive state."

                          "A simple earth ground and antenna raised to a suitable height can be used to take advantage of the potential difference that exists between the planet and its atmosphere, although this is not always practical. Charging capacitance 9 with this method is unpredictable and slow. Any suitable circuit may be used to supply the required potential difference to energize the alpha-fusion valve 8 and this will not depart from the spirit of the invention." Also, please study figure 2. This is as clear as day!

                          In fact, with the use of my unique discharge tube, my patent is much more efficient in converting the atmospheric ions into useful electrical power. My work resides in the "public domain" and can be viewed at RADIOIONICS RESEARCH TEAM, where several creame of the crop replicators are currently reproducing my contributions.

                          BTW, FYI, my discharge tube is even more advanced than what I've revealed in my patent, using more effective semiconductors. These have been shared in my Earth Ion Energy forum PPV Discussions. This is now in the public domain and as a result cannot be claimed in a new patent.

                          If my work wasn't constantly being plagiarized, and being disrespected the world would have "free energy" in their hands by now. I refuse to give such a gift to ungrateful people. Because of this there will be a price, it will be around 10 million dollars now for the public to be able to have complete access to the technology. Really, it is a small price to pay these days. I would have given it gratis if I was given credit where it was due.

                          -Bruce P.



                          Originally posted by Solarlab View Post
                          F.Y.I.

                          Hi Radioionics;

                          Your quote "This patent plagiarizes my work. My patent clearly predates it...", if you are referring to patent US9564268B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9564268B2/en, then please forgive me but I do not see any relation between your US7800286 and the above???

                          Your patent appears to be more related to some of Farnsworth's patents of the late '20s, 1930s and '40s IMHO. (Farnsworth - the inventor of television).

                          Also, in studying Farnsworth's work I note some interesting, what might be, references to overunity; for example his US2071516A. I'm finding many of his earlier patents to be quite interesting and informative.

                          https://www.google.com/patents/US207...p1DLwQ6AEIIjAA

                          Having nearly completed an analysis of the Ruslan, et al, traveling wave approach; the multipaction phenomenon might also be related, and/or a separate method.


                          FIN
                          Last edited by radioionics; 05-14-2017, 06:30 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Solarlab View Post
                            F.Y.I.

                            Hi tswift,

                            You present some interesting, thought provoking, information and postulation.

                            Another approach that you may find of value is found in Vasiliev's "Electricity
                            and Unusual Features
                            " book of 2015 (attached in a translated .pdf format).

                            He attributes the anomalies you mention to the Positron [+], it might be considered
                            the opposite, or conjugate, or antiparticle to the Electron [-] and he provides some interesting
                            evidence and observations.

                            Anyway, have a look...

                            FIN
                            Thanks, this looks like a very good reference! I'll take the time to digest it thoroughly, may take a while. If he's talking about electron/positron symmetries then we're probably on the same track. Conventional physics recognizes "CPT symmetry", where the laws of physics are identical considering an electron moving to the right in forward time with a positron moving to the left in reverse time. To quote from the wikipedia article:

                            The implication of CPT symmetry is that a "mirror-image" of our universe with all objects having their positions reflected by an arbitrary plane (corresponding to a parity inversion), all momenta reversed (corresponding to a time inversion) and with all matter replaced by antimatter (corresponding to a charge inversion) would evolve under exactly our physical laws. The CPT transformation turns our universe into its "mirror image" and vice versa. CPT symmetry is recognized to be a fundamental property of physical laws.
                            To the best of my knowledge, CPT symmetry is believed to be absolute by current generally accepted physics. However, there are known cases of CP symmetry violation, which implies T symmetry violation. So even to a university-trained physicist, the idea that some particles could be time-reversed is actually not far from what they learned in school. Like I said previously, if an inventor comes forward claiming some magic "radiant energy" machine, most scientists won't even seriously consider it because it isn't framed in language they understand. When that day comes, if there is at least a proposed theory that might be an extension of things they have been taught but doesn't require completely invalidating them, then I think at least the scientific community will find it much more palatable. Perhaps the general public probably won't care as long as it works as advertised, but a lot of people trust experts and people with "PhD" after their name. Right now there is a big intellectual hurdle to overcome where the experts won't even take this kind of work seriously.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by radioionics View Post
                              If my work wasn't constantly being plagiarized, and being disrespected the world would have "free energy" in their hands by now. I refuse to give such a gift to ungrateful people. Because of this there will be a price, it will be around 10 million dollars now for the public to be able to have complete access to the technology. Really, it is a small price to pay these days. I would have given it gratis if I was given credit where it was due.

                              -Bruce P.
                              Doesn't matter if that's a million people paying 10 dollars or 10 million paying a dollar.

                              I know a lot of folk have their own strong opinions on selling a free energy technology.

                              Mine has changed many times over the last 7 years.

                              Bruce has so much more than this it would be insane for him not to benefit so he can carry on with his research and development of his other technologies that will change our lives forever!!

                              A radioionic receiver would fit on your bench and power your entire house.

                              Just need 10 million people willing to pay a dollar and it's ours....

                              I'm sure I'll probably get flamed in some way for saying this.

                              Eventually one of you will make a demo video based on what Bruce has already disclosed and we will find these people willing to contribute.

                              Then Bruce hasn't got to bear the burden anymore and we will have the ability to be free and evolve as we should have a very long time ago!

                              Comment


                              • Radioionics Re: Patents...

                                F.Y.I

                                Based upon the patent CLAIMS, my conclusions are that these two patents have little, or nothing, in common; bar the general items that are well known to those skilled-in-the-art.

                                The Technical Field/Field of Invention bare no commonality; the diagrams do not correlate and
                                are not similar in any remote way and the Background Of the Inventions, that is, the described
                                methods and techniques required by one skilled-in-the-art to implement the invention
                                [reduce the claims to a working device], like most patents, are sadly lacking; although in all fairness both the
                                US9564268 and the US7800286B2 do contain some pertinent detail.

                                For clarity I have included my interpretation/wording of the claims from both patents.

                                US 9564268B2
                                POWER RECEIVER FOR EXTRACTING POWER FROM ELECTRIC FIELD ENERGY IN THE EARTH
                                Claims {my review interpretations}

                                1. Power receiver for extracting electrical energy from the earth's electric field; comprising:
                                - resonant transformer connected to ground,
                                - high voltage impulse generator connected to transformer primary,
                                - induce current flow from ground,
                                - transformer comprises:
                                - low voltage signal generator,
                                - step-up conversion (low to high voltage),
                                - spark gap between step-up transformer primary and ?,
                                - power conversion circuit connected to secondary.
                                2. Power receiver (claim 1) resonant below 200 Hz.
                                3. Receiver - ferro-resonant transformer.
                                4. Power receiver (claim 1) comprising elevated terminal connected to resonant transformer primary.
                                5. Power receiver (claim 4) elevated terminal comprising capacitive plate coupled to earth's ionisphere.
                                6. Power receiver (claim 1) resonant transformer includes a capacitor in parallel with primary winding.
                                7. Power receiver (claim 1) resonant transformer includes capacitor in series with primary between impulse generator and elevated terminal.
                                8. Power receiver (claim 1) further comprising multiple resonant transformers and connections.
                                9. Power receiver (claim 8) resonant transformers of different resonant frequencies.
                                10. ... frequencies are all below 200 Hz.
                                11. Power receiver (claim 8) resonant frequencies are matched to Schumann resonances.
                                12. Ground terminal for power receiver comprising:
                                - ground shaft below earth surface,
                                - hollow cylinder with plurality of openings,
                                - ground shaft wiring details.

                                US 7800286B2
                                ALPHA FUSION ELECTRICAL ENERGY VALVE
                                Claims {my review interpretations}

                                1. Electrical generator for generating electrical energy comprising:
                                - airtight vessel including insulation, inner cylindrical wall cavity, including,
                                - negatively charged corona wire made of delta-ray emissive material which
                                functions as an electron emitter, and
                                - including germanium, silicone, or lead-sulfide for emitting delta ray electrons
                                - when bombarded with high energy alpha particles,
                                - an palladium (Pd) or activated carbon electron collector inside the vessel,
                                - cavity filled with Radon Gas of an energy level greater than 6.06 MeV,
                                - two conductive pins attached to the base through airtight seals,
                                - first pin connected to corona wire,
                                - second pin connected to electron collector,
                                - wherein:
                                - first pin - corona wire initially charged through an external negative charge
                                - second pin - charged through an external positive charge
                                - after charging the corona wire and electron collector, first and second pins act as
                                a cathode and anode of the electrical generator.

                                Anyway, I do appreciate the time, dedication and expense involved in patenting one's
                                inventions as well as the deep feelings of pride and protection in defense of one's
                                intellectual property. However, one must also remain realistic.

                                I will not engage in further analysis or discussion; this is best left to the primary
                                inventors, their legal council and other experts should the need arise.

                                BTW, IMHO both of these patents would be easily overturned simply based on prior art and claim construction.

                                Now, since we are an informal group; let me just add two phrases that you may find valuable in patent and claim
                                construction; a) "but not limited to," and, b) "as is known to those skilled-in-the-art" or "one skilled in the art." There
                                are many others (as are found in most patents); but you hopefully get the idea! Happy patenting...

                                Two prime reasons [there are many others of course] for patenting an invention or idea; (1.) protect your invention,
                                and (2.) stop others from stopping you from deploying your inventions or ideas!!! Also, public domain exposure of
                                your idea (open source) is a gamble to some extent however it is cost effective and often times the servicing of your
                                idea can be more rewarding and lucrative than actually trying to manufacture and sell your invention (the idea or the product) .
                                Food for thought...

                                FIN
                                Last edited by Solarlab; 05-14-2017, 04:24 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X