Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube REGISTER NOW*** 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


Monero XMR


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Inductive Resistor Open source development of highly efficient inductive resistor circuits.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #271  
Old 07-06-2009, 06:30 PM
Altair Altair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 107
Rosemary,

I am a bit perplexed by something that you said sometime ago, and that I can't find again, but it was about your concern that the body diode inside the Mosfet was limiting the performance of the circuit.
From my understanding of conventional electronics, this diode would not come on during any phase of operation of your circuit. I don't see any reverse current flowing at any time in the Mosfet.
When an inductor relaxes after being charged, the current being generated is in the same direction as the one that charged it.

Yet, you seem to imply that there is a reversal of current in the inductor.
Here is an excerpt from your recent post # 258:

"3. Now as we all know when the switch is opened we see the reverse flow as the field collapses. If at this instant when the switch is opened and the two ends of the wire(battery disconnected) are shorted out we see the same current flow through our ammeters(reverse direction)."

Would you care to explain in detail the concept by which this is taking place.

Thanks
__________________
 

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #272  
Old 07-06-2009, 07:05 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Altair - I've answered this post twice and - for some reason - lost it twice. Hopefully this one will stick.

I'm not sure which circuit you're referring to. If the one for the IET paper, then here's the thing. During the on period of the duty cycle the voltage across the load resistor is above zero. Current from this voltage moves to the negative terminal of the battery and results in a reduction of potential difference. During the off period of the duty cycle the voltage (that spike) is below zero. The current from this voltage moves to the positive terminal of the battery and recharges it. Both positive and negative cycles result in dissipation of energy at the load resistor.

The MOSFET's intrinsic body diode is not that robust that it can take really hefty spikes. This limits the application of this circuit to smaller wattages. However, henieck has some ideas on how to apply it to really hefty uses. And there's also a proposal that these fets can be paralleled to increase this tolerance. My own experience of this not so good. But perhaps we were'nt using the optimum type - or more likely yet, we were doing it wrong. In any event the diode seems 'brittle' and it would be so nice if these could be manufactured to take far, far, higher voltages. Hopefully that's clear. And hopefully I don't lose this post again. Here goes.

SORRY - I should have added that the quote is Donovan's. But it's as mentioned above. There is a definite reversal of current flow between the two cycles. Not sure why this isn't evident? Can you explain what you mean - if I've missed something.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-06-2009 at 07:09 PM.
  #273  
Old 07-06-2009, 07:37 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
By the way - I think I need to stress a point here. There is apparently some question as to the actual charge of the batteries from this returning energy delivered by the collapsing fields on the resistive load. I do not know the chemistry involved in recharging batteries. But what I can assure you is that the rate at which the battery discharges its energy - on our circuit - is consistent with the measured wattage.

Again, the difference between the wattage measured during the ON cycle and the wattage measured during the OFF cycle is the actual measure of the rate at which the battery discharges its energy. And a control test will quickly establish this. Michael asked about the BP report in an earlier post. I am reasonably sure that I've got this report - somewhere - but am not sure how to get this copied here. I'll see what I can do - but first need to find that report. At worst I'll simply retype it and post it. If it's too long I can do it in over two or three separate posts. But give me a day or two to get this exercise together.
__________________
 
  #274  
Old 07-06-2009, 09:21 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altair View Post

From my understanding of conventional electronics, this diode would not come on during any phase of operation of your circuit. I don't see any reverse current flowing at any time in the Mosfet.
When an inductor relaxes after being charged, the current being generated is in the same direction as the one that charged it.
- this is very helpful animation, similar to our circuit:

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-induct.html

but this is just traditional electronics, like you said. Perhaps Rosemary sometime will have her scope screenshots ready to attach so we will better see the difference.
__________________
 
  #275  
Old 07-06-2009, 10:03 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
During the on period of the duty cycle the voltage across the load resistor is above zero. Current from this voltage moves to the negative terminal of the battery and results in a reduction of potential difference. During the off period of the duty cycle the voltage (that spike) is below zero.
- I think that so far it is exactly the same as conventional theory. Next statements have to be carefully examined.

Quote:
The current from this voltage moves to the positive terminal of the battery and recharges it. Both positive and negative cycles result in dissipation of energy at the load resistor.
- this can also be true, but we don't see the same NUMBERS as Rosemary's, yet. I suspect that the same energy cannot do both - charge the battery and be dissipated as heat in the resistor - but Rosemary maintains that this is the whole point and different ways of measurement confirms this anomaly to her. I suspect faulty logic - she says - go and make the experiment... So today I made new, bigger, hollow core from an ordinary brick (35mm diameter). Lots of dust but probably that was the easiest part

Quote:
There is a definite reversal of current flow between the two cycles. Not sure why this isn't evident?
- to me it looks that in your circuit the current in certain conditions (during off phase) may indeed reverse to the battery through the flyback diode - but rater no chances that it will reverse in the inductor.
__________________
 

Last edited by henieck; 07-06-2009 at 11:37 PM.
  #276  
Old 07-06-2009, 11:32 PM
Altair Altair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 107
Rosemary, I believe that it impossible for the current in the inductor to reverse direction during the OFF phase of the Mosfet. As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit.
The only path is then through the flyback diode, back to the top (to the positive supply).
The only way there could be a reversal of direction of current is if there was a capacitor in parallel or in series with the inductor. Then an oscillation could develop and produce alternating current in the inductor and capacitor.

But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).

__________________
 
  #277  
Old 07-06-2009, 11:51 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
You can attach pics, but the attachment space for each account here is very low so I'd recommend hosting your pics elsewhere.
- now i get it, thank you very much. I have also found the other option -loading attachment directly from my computer.
__________________
 
  #278  
Old 07-07-2009, 06:54 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
. As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

Ok. I'm going to try and answer this. But I need to remind you all - all those that agree with Altair on this issue. I am an amateur. No-one taught me about electric current flow - and no-one taught me about the nature of inductors and their need to 'retain a directional flow in current'. It was entirely omittted from my frame of reference. From technicians all the way up to some highly qualified electrical engineers - many of whom are acknowledge experts in the art, those many who helped build or evaluate the circuit - never tried to teach me conventional current flow. And this was despite pretty constant discussion over a decade and many instances where I asked the question directly. It used to puzzle me - as I was anxious to learn this. I was looking for a common frame of reference. Then I realised that they were probably simply accommodating my view of this - precisely because it was different. Maybe, therefore it could possibly account for the anomalies that were evident in these results.

So, Altair, I need to impose on you to hear my view point. If it is wrong then the measured results will refute my analysis. But my lack of understanding conventional flow has never been addressed. You will note that my knowledge, such as it is, of conventional current flow eventully relied on my own research. It is in two earlier consecutive posts on page 6, (from memory) in this thread. And both argue that conventional current flow, based on a concept of the 'flow of electrons' is simply illogical. But having said that - I happen to be the 'beginner' here and you guys are just so much better trained and experienced. If I am wrong then it will very quickly be shown. In fact henieck was the first person who ever showed me that - at its least - it could be argued that 'free floating' electrons could be responsible for charge distribution between two terminals. But even that entirely contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle, based as it is on the argument that two electrons (charged particles from the lepton family) cannot 'share' the same path. While Pauli was referring to the an atom's energy levels - and we are here looking at a far grosser field of application - then perhaps this law too, needs to be modified.

This has been a remarkably extensive 'apologia' and I think it may well stress the tolerance of such as Dr Stiffler, so - apologies all round. But I feel it is really important that you know where I come in.

I'm going to post this - because I've found that long posts cannot be easily edited - and I may well need to do so. I'll continue in the next post.
__________________
 
  #279  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:27 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
2
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

I'm still trying to answer this question. So I've duplicated the reference. And as pointed out in the previous post my 'concept' of curent flow is not consistent with classical analysis. But as I do not understand classical concept I'm going to see if I can share my own.

To start with I need to refer to well known induction laws. In this, I think it was Farraday, established that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. Then Maxwell argued and proved that changing electric fields also induce magnetic fields. But no-one to this day has found an electric field in a simple magnet on magnet interaction. Put two bar magnets together within a critical proximity and the one will attach to the other. That interaction shows an energetic movement of one or both magnets towards each other in space and over time - that, at its least, requires an energetic interaction. And - in that interaction - there is no evident manifestation of an electric field. It may, indeed, be hidden within the body of the magnet. But if it is there it has never been found. Now. I have discussed this point with acknowledged experts in the field - and, to a man - I have been assured that while the electric field has not been shown to exist in this magnet on magnet interaction - it is, nonetheless, assumed to exist. In fact I need to refer to a paper written on this but cannot, for the life of me, find it again. But there was an attempt at finding this field and the results were inconclusive. This also means that the lack of this electric field has been addressed. For some reason it has also apparently been put on hold - presumably in the hopes of finding a means of detecting it? I just don't know.

Well this is the first radical departure from known physics. In effect, if this magnet on magnet interaction - in fact manifests no electric field - then it may indicate that the magnetic force is an entirely independant field that is extant - as a newly identified and independant force - like gravity - or the strong nuclear force. And - in this way - the electromagnetic force may simply be a secondary force, relying, in its essential definition, on the existence of that primary field. That was the foundational basis of the field model.

I wont bore you with the tedious deductions that led to the field model except to reference one single effect that I have found resonates with most people. But I'll reference it in the next post - again, because I have found that I cannot edit my posts if they're too long. Apologies to Aaron if this, in fact, is not allowed.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-07-2009 at 07:32 AM.
  #280  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:42 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
editing

Hi Rosemary,

I believe there is a glitch with the editing option. When you click on Edit, you will see an "advanced edit" option, use that and it will work virtually every time.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #281  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:06 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
3
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

Here's the thing. Imagine that one has a machine that propels rocks in a vacuum. And it always applies a constant force so there are no extraneous forces to take into account. Under those circumstances then the smaller the rock the further the throw and vice versa. But if the rock were too big the machine could not lift it. And if it were too small the machine could not detect it. That's a boundary constraint.

(By the way there is an inverse proportional relationship suggested between velocity and mass - in that interaction. It is not required to answer Altair's quesion but I will refer to it in due course. It may possibly interest Armagdn03.)

The second point is this. All things are the sum of their parts. If we were to grind down a rock to its finest parts we'd find collections of atoms and molecules that formed the amalagam of the rock in its earlier bound state.
That's my definition of a principle of correspondence.

These were the tools that I used to determine the properties of a magnetic field. Again - just to get to the nub and to exclude the tedious dialectic that requires it I'll just deal with the conclusions.

My proposal is that magnetic fields comprise particles. They are too small and too fast for light to detect the particle. In effect they are outside the boundary constraints of light itself. They are magnetic dipoles that attach - north to south - head to toe. They form long strings that eventually close in on themselves to form circles. The whole field comprises many, many such strings to form the shape of a toroid. The particle, being a magnetic dipole, continually adjusts its position to its neighbouring dipoles in the field. This necessitates a compelementary movement of every particle in that entire field. This gives the field a fixed justification or direction. The force of the entire field maintains that direction. The particle is referred to as a zipon. It has a velocity of 2c and its mass is half that of a photon. All particles are composites of this zipon. The charge of the whole field is perfectly neutral and the zipons move to maintain that neutrality. Therefore each part of the entire field is perfectly balanced with every other part to produce a net zero charge.

In a simple bar magnet that symmetry is broken because one half of the orbit is shielded from the other half.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-07-2009 at 09:13 AM.
  #282  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:14 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Tthanks Aaron. But I think I'll continue as I am. I've just reviewed it and it seems to read quite easily. It also keeps the points focused. I'll try the 'advanced' later. Amazed that you're still awake. Obviously like so many of us you don't like wasting time on sleep. My co-author says he 'sleeps between blinks'. I cat nap. And you, at its least, are self-evidently - a night owl.
__________________
 
  #283  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:07 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
4
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).
Altair

Still the same question - but still the circuitous path (no pun intended) to answer it. Hope this is all readable and understandable. Anyway - fingers crossed and I'll plod on in the real knowledge that I'm taxing your patience. It is just that I SO need to make these points and hopefully to make them clearly. The arguments have been laboriously covered in my field model. That's where the actual dialectic comes in. But this, at its least, may serve as a synopsis.

So. The next point is purely hypothetical. Imagine that the universe comprises a backdrop of these magnetic fields. What if all of space comprises these little undetectable zipons that move around at twice light speed but always maintain that perfect charge distribution. They are entirely undetectable yet their force is - in fact - in every nook and cranny of the universe. Because the strings join - the influence on any part will be entirely consistent with the whole. Those strings would have to be really, really long, and really, really thin. And each string would have to move in 'lock step' with every other string. The outer strings would need to be longer than the inner - but the 'shoulder to shoulder' lateral arrangement of those strings would counter the distribution of charge and energy - that is makes for this required 'smoothness'. So. Hypothetically, this could be a fair description of the field - as a backdrop or a skeletal frame - to the condition of apparent vacuum of space. A really big toroid comprising an uncountable number of these tiny zipons. This, I think, may now occur to you as a possible source of both dark matter and dark energy required by our physicists.

But, in any event. Let's hypothesise further. What would happen if one of those strings broke?
__________________
 
  #284  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:24 AM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
...conventional current flow, based on a concept of the 'flow of electrons' is simply illogical.
- it is just a model or reality which turned out to be quite useful so far- but there may be something in addition to that as well. Almost every next theory in the history of science included the previous one as a subset, because there was a grain of truth, but the scope was narrower and comprehension limited. They were extensions of the previous ones. So most probably any new theory will not contradict entirely of what we know about for example electron-ion interaction in batteries, because this piece of puzzle fits quite nicely together with many, many other phenomenon- with the whole chemistry, physics and mathematics at least. So either one day somebody will assimilate the previous theory as a subset of the new one - or what you have in your circuit is a mixture - of traditional current flow and some quite other phenomenon. Whoever is going to merge the previous theory with the new extension - definitively must fully understand them both first.

So we just assume that this internal diode is probably unnecessary from the conventional point of view - but we keep it, because it may be critically important to the other things going on in the circuit- which we want to discover. So the question arises, if you could give us a littlie shortcut in our discovery journey- what happens if there is no such a transistor's internal diode?
__________________
 
  #285  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:44 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
editing posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Tthanks Aaron. But I think I'll continue as I am. I've just reviewed it and it seems to read quite easily. It also keeps the points focused. I'll try the 'advanced' later. Amazed that you're still awake. Obviously like so many of us you don't like wasting time on sleep. My co-author says he 'sleeps between blinks'. I cat nap. And you, at its least, are self-evidently - a night owl.
Lol, yes, I'm up late most nights.

I thought the posts looked great! Wasn't sure what needed editing, thought you were asking when you said something like you couldn't edit the longer posts. Sounded like something went wrong.

Anyway, have a great night!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #286  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:52 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
5
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).
Altair

The last question was 'what would happen if one of those strings broke?' I'm not too concerned as to the cause. It could be due to the unfortunate juxtaposition of two like charges in a chance coincident positioning of two or more zipons. Or, as I've described it in my field model, perhaps God Himself simply snipped one of those threads. In any event - once out of the smooth structure of the field I imagine that the truants would lose velocity and gain mass in an inverse proportion. In other words they would 'slow down' to the speed of light and light, itself, would find the zipon. That change in its manifest nature is likened to, and indeed proposed as - the source of all nebulae in space. Just a lot of zipons that have tumbled out of nowhere to structure into huge piles of manifest zipons.

But, in its state out of the field I've referred to the zipon as a truant. It is still a magnetic dipole but it no longer has the cohesive and coherent condition that it expressed in the field. Just a mass of manifest truants that have tumbled together from the force of a broken string of zipons. Like a pile of sugar - or clouds from a nuclear explosion - or falling leaves from a tree in autumn - or iron filings from a lathe.

However for symmetry - while some truants may have slowed down, equally therefore some truants may have speeded up. Those that have increased their velocity would do it at the expense of their mass in direct opposition to the those that increased their mass at the expense of their velocity. The smaller truant is referred to as the antitruant. And because of the boundary constraint, the zipons in the field can find neither truant. The one is too big and the other is too small. In effect, both truants remain invisible to the field. The field simply closes ranks to compensate for that broken string and they continue their march, ever forward, entirely oblivious to the break in that string and to the loss of the string, to the field.

I want to refer to the next points in a single paragraph - with apologies to purists who would require a fuller description. Again, it is fully described in the field model itself. This is merely a synopsis relating to the conclusions of the model rather than to an account of the logic that precedes the conclusion.

Virtual particles are those particles that lose their mass - regain their velocity and slip back into a string in that background universal structure. Stable particles are those truants that 'link' with their antitruant across the field, the 'ground zero' so to speak or the great divide. The point being that in this movement towards each other brings their mass/velocity back into co-incidence with the field which means that they are no longer invisible to the field. They would then be moved - by the force of the field at that point that they interacted with each other. Therefore, the antitruant is also a quark - here defined as that truant that anchors a composite out of the field. And composite truants can only be stable if they comprise 2, 3 or 9 truants. All other composites between 4 to 8 would variously subdivide into 1, 2 or three composites. The model also determines that 2 composites comprise the photon, 3 the electron and 9 the proton. But I'll return to this point at a much later stage - when and if anyone wants a fuller explanation of the field model. Otherwise a fuller description is largely irrelevant. I think I've covered the more salient features as needed to answer Altair's question.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-08-2009 at 08:57 AM.
  #287  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:03 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Aaron - I do, indeed, have difficulty editing longer posts. I found that out with the one that I posted to TinselKoala. I either duplicate or delete. No alternatives. And never an edit allowed. I'm possibly doing something wrong. But it is allowed - for some reason - with shorter posts.

In any event - if you read this when you've slept - whenever that is? then I hope you had a good sleep. Else - have a good sleep. The vagaries of intercontinental communication and it's variable time frames.

And heniec - I'll get to your point. I promise you. The thing is that my study entirely depends on known physics. It is, indeed, an extension. It includes the magnetic field as a primary force. I'll get to the relevance. I think it only takes two more points. Sorry to tax your patience. I learned some time back that yours is an essentially pragmatic nature. I'm a plodder. Please bear with me.
__________________
 
  #288  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:13 AM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,192
Rose
I just love the way you write, I am English but have been living here in Spain for nearly 20years and I have lost a lot in my English, I tend to mix with Spanish these days, I'm getting old as well.

I like what you are saying in the posts above, I think I can apply mentally this to the work of Tom Bearden and the MEG, also to Floyd Sweet's VTA amoungst many others, this really opens up the mind, thank you

Mike
__________________
 
  #289  
Old 07-07-2009, 12:02 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Mike, thanks for the kind comments. I never know how the points are received, so any word of encouragement - most welcome. There must be a parallel to others works - especially Bedini in his reference to zero point energy. But the truth is I've never read any other works. And Bedini doesn't really explain. He simply points. If I've got a contribution I think it's that I could prove the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. But the real proof is in the experimental evidence of the circuit. That's the litmus test.

That we need to get to this energy source is critical. So any advancement of its properties must help.

In any event. Yet again. Many thanks.
__________________
 
  #290  
Old 07-07-2009, 12:07 PM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,205
Hi folks, Hi Rosemary, I'm glad you came to the forum and your theories are quite interesting. I'm not sure if you read my post it was #14 and in those tests I used a separate inductor in series, however last night i ran a few tests with just the resistor itself and something is definitely happening to cause a much faster rise in temperature within the resistor, maybe it is resonating within itself due to the flyback diode as is being said here. I'm running the 555 timer @ 285 hz @ 6.5% duty cycle @ 12v input w/ a 1 ohm, 10 watt wire wound resistor with what i assume contains the Manganin (Copper/Nickel/Manganese) coiled wire. the resistor part has marked on it ' cp-10 mexico 10W 1ohm 10% dale 9722 '. I used the same thumb method to detect the temp. and when it became too hot for my thumb to remain. amp draw shown on dmm was .37A-.38A, 3 tests with diode flyback and 3 tests without were made.
1) average time to reach same temp. WITHOUT diode flyback - 4min.30sec.
2) average time to reach same temp. WITH diode flyback - 3min.15sec.
Very interesting indeed considering I am only seeing around 40 millivolts on a dmm when measuring separately the flyback voltage off the diode, obviously something like resonance or other effect is occuring to provide this enhanced heat output. Well there ya go.
peace love light
__________________
 
  #291  
Old 07-07-2009, 12:46 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
6
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair


I think I'm nearing the point where I can finally answer the question. Apologies for taxing everyone by telling them so much more than they may want to know. In any event. The end looms large. Please bear with me. And again to the purists, the following statements need to be argued. But, again, this is just an abbreviated, broad brush stroke account. It is more fully explained in that model.

The next point is this. The truants in that nebulus are still simply very small magnets and they do what all magnets do. They try to congregate in orderly formations. They cannot, however, re-constitute that string. Rather do they cohere or fuse into stable or virtual particles in a series of 'small steps' so to speak. The first amalgam is into photons and electrons. The second more complex step is into the structure of a proton which, with it, comes the first real closed system away from the nebulus and out of the field. But in the accretion or 'fusion' into this hydrogen atom - and really to satisfy the symmetries of 'charge distribution' - it is proposed that the creation of this atom is also accompanied by a field of zipons that decay from truants in the nebulus itself. It is proposed that these zipons form the energy levels or hydrogen lines that are measurably evident. It is these energy levels themselves that it is proposed, maintains the hydrogen atom as the first truly closed system away from the primary fields of the universe itself.

Then further accretion - and the hydrogen atom itself is massed with other hydrogen systematically generating the structure of a new star. However, the actual binding of those atoms and their energy levels is at the cost of yet more traunts and antitruants from that same nebulus. They form fields that circle that atomic structure - holding one atom hydrogen atom away from another. This is the point. The actual material of the star body is held together by an unseen binding force of zipons that decayed from the truants and antitruants to form a kind of glue. This first holds star amalgams together and then - on a more universal scale - all amalgams.

The proposal is, therefore, that in the visible evidence of any gross amalgam, be it battery acid, iron, rocks, whole mountains, buildings, whatever - the thing that actually binds such structures are always zipons. These fields circle the atoms and determine the kind of 'abodes' of such atoms and their alignments in chaotic or structured crystalline formations. We don't see them because they orbit. Therefore, regardless of their justification or direction, the field is neutral. And we cannot find them because their velocity exceeds light speed. They are, therefore, outside the boundary constraints of light itself.

The existence of this field is relevant because it is proposed that it is these fields that move as current in electric energy through circuit components. These same fields manifest as flame in 'fire' which I'll discuss later. I mention it here because it most easily illustrates this particle. But for now, it is just necessary to point to these fields, entirely extraneous to the atomic structure, that are responsible for ensuring the equal distribution of atoms within amalgams. If the atom's basic structure is ionised therefore requiring some equal distribution of charge through the positioning of those abodes - then these zipons align the atoms to achieve that balance.

So it is proposed that current flow is - in fact - the flow, not of electrons that are essentially of like charge and therefore mutually repellent - but of zipons that easily structure into plastic formations, can extend their influence through space, and can adjust their own and other atomic charge by the careful positioning of atoms - one against another and can move to realign molecules and atoms so that the charge distribution is better balanced.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-08-2009 at 08:58 AM.
  #292  
Old 07-07-2009, 01:20 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
7
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).
Altair

So here's my take on current flow through the circuit. The material of the battery acid comprises ionised molecules and atoms that essentially have a like charge and are therefore mutually repellent. Between these molecules and atoms are fields of zipons that spin in the opposite direction to those molecules and atoms to counter the ionised condition of those atoms at the source. But having a like spin they themselves are mutually repellent - the one field to the other. Their object is to change their spin - realign this to accommodate their own mutual repulsion. And by so doing they then rearrange the abodes of those molecules and atoms at the source, thereby diminishing the effects of that like charge. In so doing they also diminish the potential difference at the source.

But they cannot simply change their orbits, any more than a flux field from a permanent magnet can change its orbit. However, if they move from one terminal to another they effectively describe an orbit. And then their re-introduction to the field in that amalgam can then also enable that required 'changed spin'. In effect they change their position in space. Just think of a bar magnet. It has to change it's actual physical position to adjust to another magnetic field. The same with these little fields. They also move through space by interacting with the inductive and conductive material of the circuit components themselves. That way they reach the opposite terminal with an opposite spin and can re-introduce themselves into the material at the source with an adjusted spin.

But they do not interact with anything in that circuit other than the circuit's own binding magnetic fields. The zipon is restricted to its own boundary constraint. Anything that moves at light speed is too big and too slow to be seen or detected. Matter iself is invisible to this particle. It simply only sees and only interacts with those binding fields because these binding magnetic fields are precisely the right velocity and mass to enable an interaction. And both the zipon particle and the field of zipons are always neutral. It is just the justification and direction of their spin that determines their charge.

Therefore with the full force of potential difference measured at the supply source, it can overwhelm these binding zipons in circuit components to move them out of the structure of the circuit material or interact with them to move themselves through the circuit. Their only object is to reach the opposite terminal in order to change their justification. And having changed this they also realign the molecules and atoms so that that they no longer repel each other. They simply realign their own spin as it relates to the atoms in the source amalgam. That way they diminish the potential difference of the source amalgam over time.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-08-2009 at 08:59 AM.
  #293  
Old 07-07-2009, 01:24 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
SkyWatcher - how fantastic. If you've got a resonating frequency - at last then that would be grand. It's an exponential increase to energy efficiency. But the use of a flyback diode in a switching circuit must always result in a gain - obviously within certain frequency parameters.

I think these frequency parameters are between 20Hz and 300KHz. But I'm open to correction.

Great stuff. Really good news.
__________________
 
  #294  
Old 07-07-2009, 02:21 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?

1) Did any of your patent APPLICATIONS result in the actual granting of PATENTS, and if so, where are the patent documents available?

2) Was the circuit published in the Quantum article used to generate the data in that article and in the EIT paper, or not?

3) Can you assure us that the energy balance calculations in the article and the paper do NOT suffer from the "duty cycle" problem that I have identified? I mean "assure" not "assert." I'd like to see some original data from the experiment and exact details of calculations. After all, the claim is COP>17. Surely something that robust can survive a little scrutiny.

4) Do you (or other readers) realize that if the data was generated with the Quantum circuit, the energy balance conclusions are Wrong, and so--all theoretical speculation based upon them are, at best, unsupported by evidence..???

Easy questions, straightforward. And all of them are critical this "discussion."
__________________
 
  #295  
Old 07-07-2009, 03:01 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?TinselKoala

Because I find your attitude arrogant, your questions spurious and your demand that I answer them objectionable. I am under no obligation to answer any of your questions at all. Nor will I until you have attended to some of mine - starting with this which I copied from a previous post.


The following quote from TinselKoala from the link provided in his last post.

I suppose arrogance is a necessary concomitant of prevarication and mendacity, if one wants to enhance seeming credibility among the credulous. But it's the arrogant liers that are the worst, because they will never never admit that they are wrong and have been shovelling you a line of bs.


TinselKoala - I'm a great admirer of a good turn of phrase. This has got to be up there. Masterful description. If I have a criticism it is just that the terms 'prevarication' and 'mendacity' are a tad tautological. I suppose it can be argued that 'prevarication' doesn't go to the gullet with the same purity of sense as does 'mendacity'. So the two terms could be justified to lend each other more emphasis. In any event. Are these attributes proven to be effective in promoting a lie? Have you used the technique? Can you recommend this? And when you use the word 'lier' do you in fact mean 'liar' - as used in English? The only other question I have is who is it you're describing?
__________________
 
  #296  
Old 07-07-2009, 03:07 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
If the shoe fits, wear it.

For example, you have repeatedly referred to your "patents". However, I can only find patent applications. Please correct me if you have actually been issued patents on any of these applications.

For another example, there's that circuit published in the Quantum article with your name on it. The article says it was used to generate the data in the article. Yet it has no flyback diode, nor does the article mention one. But in the EIT paper reporting the same experiment...there it is, and suddenly it's "necessary".

And for another example, if the data was obtained using the Quantum circuit, the duty cycle calculation was wrong and invalidates the experiment. Since there is a very REAL QUESTION about the actual circuit and duty cycle used in the experiment, how can this be described as "spurious"? And why don't you simply answer the question with some details?
It sort of reminds me of the issue of Obama's birth certificate: If all is kosher, why in the world cover it up?

On the one hand you are begging for replications. On the other hand, when someone actually tries to replicate your experiment and finds problems, you freak out and start obfuscating with talk of zipons and antitruants.
Oddly enough, I find this par for the course, and I expected no less. Because, you see, I actually read all your work in the Web before I even started this project.
__________________
 

Last edited by TinselKoala; 07-07-2009 at 03:15 PM.
  #297  
Old 07-07-2009, 03:39 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
8
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).
Altair

Now, finally, I think I can answer your question. The transfer of these fields through the circuit material is proposed to be at twice light speed. The extruded magnetic fields across the resistor is also therefore, instantaneous, with respect to our own time frame. The justification of that extruded magnetic field is determined by the applied potential difference from the source.

So. During that ON period of the duty cycle when the switch is open - these zipons from the battery supply source line up in fields through the circuit material and across the circuit itself to discharge at the opposite terminal. Let's call that justification or path - south/north. And the extruded fieldson the resistor/inductor would then, correspondingly, be north/south.

When the switch is open and the battery can no longer deliver any current, then the extruded fields collapse. Collapsing magnetic fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. They induce a reversal in the voltage which is also a measure of the newly applied potential difference from the material of the resistor itself. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. The justification of the voltage has changed - say south/north so the resultant current will change, let's say north/south. Those same zipons that have not yet discharged at the terminal now do an 'about face' so to speak and move towards the postive terminal of the battery. Their justification is such that they then recharge the material at the source.

In effect, the fields have simply flowed in the reverse direction to recharge the material that they had previously intended to discharge. I don't mean, by the word 'intended' that they sat around and discussed the issue. Just that they are compelled to move in the direction of the applied potential difference. The applied potential difference during the off period of the duty cycle is in reverse to the on period.

The bias of the flyback and the body diode in the MOSFET enables this flow during the off period, as their polarity is now consistent with the flow of current.

The point about the flow of zipons as opposed to the flow of electrons is, the known speed of current flow would be enabled - seen to be at light speed - but proposed herein to be at 2c. The zipon is able to change direction and justification. The zipon is not constrained to the exclusion priniciple as, far from being mutually repellent, zipons would attach, exactly as magnets attach - in long plastic lines through the circuit itself. And their path would be restricted through polarised materials such as the diodes - depending on their justification as they respond to different potential differences. Then the recharge system would simply force the realignment of these same zipons to their previously charged state within the material of the battery itself.

EDIT - And the point about current flow is that it's direction will be determined by the applied voltage. It cannot but move in the required direction. That's my interpretation - and open to correction.

I hope that's answered the question Altair. And if I've told you much, much more than you intended to ask - apologies.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-08-2009 at 09:09 AM. Reason: correction to the description of the switch
  #298  
Old 07-07-2009, 04:12 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,305
Rosemary
Thank you
While you may be put off by TK's candor ,He is not a creep, nor an enemy
He searches for the unexplained with great zeal [and a LOT of smarts,life's experience[and equipment]]

Hopefully your man Donavan can help with the things that have alluded replicators here

Chet
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 07-07-2009 at 04:23 PM.
  #299  
Old 07-07-2009, 05:05 PM
Altair Altair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 107
Rosemary, Wow !
That ought to be the most extensive reply I've ever seen on this forum.
No you don't have to apologize for the length of it, this is a fascinating theory. You must have spent the most part of the day on this post, have a rest.
I will have to re-read it a couple times, for sure, because I cannot say that I follow you 100%.
The part I have the most difficulty with, is the sixth one. First, when you refer to the switch (Mosfet) as closed and open, there seems to be a contradiction of terms. The established convention describes a closed switch as one wich conducts current, and conversely, an open switch doesn't conduct. Your text implies the contrary.

Second, I can accept the zipon flow theory, but I still do not see what would generate a voltage of opposite polarity that would then flip the zipon's direction.

But anyway I think that a good test of the theory would be to try in your circuit, a Mosfet that doesn't have the body diode. Then, by placing (or not) a reverse diode in parallel with the mosfet, it would be possible to ascertain the usefulness of that diode. If it was proven to be necessary, that would prove that there is indeed a reverse current going from ground to the top of the circuit.
Thinking about it, it would also be possible to check that current by just placing a shunt in series with the Mosfet and viewing it with a scope. (Unless of course that particular zipon current is undetectable with conventional instrumentation !)
__________________
 
  #300  
Old 07-07-2009, 05:44 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
From Google:

Your search - zipon fluxmeter - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.


Darn.

__________________
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers