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
  #301  
Old 07-07-2009, 05:55 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 796
Tinselkoala

You had some valid questions but with your antagonistic attitude you will most likely never get an answer.

Why would anyone want to help or answer your question when you are so insulting?

Rosemary has been kind enough to join our forum to help, she has no obligation too.
__________________
 

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

  #302  
Old 07-07-2009, 06:11 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
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.

just put in zipons.biz
__________________
 
  #303  
Old 07-07-2009, 06:19 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,305
TK
The little kicky laughy guy?
Mark
Tk's efforts[most extensive here to date] to "PROVE' Rosemary's findings
And his inability to PROVE with the info provided !!
Is what this unnecessary conflict is all about.
He did what he was asked [REPLICATE] ???[Rosemary's open request]
You can't put a man to work .......and leave him hanging
You'll always get grumblings that way!!

Chet
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 07-07-2009 at 06:38 PM.
  #304  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:02 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
@ Tk

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
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."
TK,

How many minutes would it take you to modify your the Quantum magazine article to match the one in the paper? I would guess it would take less time than it does for you to keep posting about what is wrong or different with the Quantum article. Rosemary already said to use the one in the paper.

Whether or not the Quantum article needs to be retracted, corrected, etc... is something suitable for a different conversation - and a patent or application status is irrelevant. What about working circuits that are never patented. They're not valid or don't work because they're not patented? She is right here in this thread telling you exactly what circuit to use. Why not use it? She is obviously staking her reputation on this circuit and that carries more weight than trivial nonsense like patent status.

Do you realize how many patents are granted that have devices that don't work? I'm not saying Rosemary's circuit doesn't work, just that a patent is not a requirement to have a valid circuit.

There is a US patent on a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE FROM GOD - go look it up if you don't believe me. So according to your logic, that patent is granted so it must work right?

The Czec govt is about the only one that I know that requires that something has to work in order to be given a patent - the pyramid shape razor blade sharpener is one example because it was proven to work. But again, still irrelevant.

The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet.

There have been people that couldn't get the wheel to spin on a Bedini SG circuit and then they blame John. Go figure...

Bedini always said "Don't change it until it works" meaning do it like the inventor says - Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper - then once it works, then change components and do other modifications but not before.

All your questions are NOT critical to this discussion or purpose of this thread. Again, Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #305  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:08 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
@ debunkers

@ debunkers and disinformation spreaders

The extra work on the off cycle here is really common sense and I'm amazed at what an issue it is for anyone to accept this. For anyone that doesn't buy it, go pull the fuses out of all your surge protectors and put in a hard wire, turn your home power off and on at the breaker box a few times and see if there is any usable work in what the magnetic fields give up AFTER the power is turned off.

It takes WORK to fry an appliance or anything else plugged into the wall from a surge which happens AFTER the power is turned off.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #306  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:13 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
replicate with info provided?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
And his inability to PROVE with the info provided !!
Is what this unnecessary conflict is all about.
He did what he was asked [REPLICATE] ???[Rosemary's open request]
You can't put a man to work .......and leave him hanging
You'll always get grumblings that way!!

Chet
Chet,

Rosemary's information in this thread included the advice to use the circuit in the paper and not the article and she is obviously here to offer support to anyone replicating it - and not leaving anyone hanging.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #307  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:27 PM
Gauss Gauss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 233
Since you started this thread you should input your time to verify her claims. Instead of using longer and longer messages that lead nowhere. The other option is to let R-M present her findings in a more concrete form.

How hard can it be for R-M to send a device, make a video or have a presentation for professional engineers in SA???!

R-M or any of her friends have all the options, if she does not want to use either of them and you sit tight typing, how likely is this to work?

Aaron, please waste no more time on rhetoric, show us proof!!





Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
TK,

How many minutes would it take you to modify your the Quantum magazine article to match the one in the paper? I would guess it would take less time than it does for you to keep posting about what is wrong or different with the Quantum article. Rosemary already said to use the one in the paper.

Whether or not the Quantum article needs to be retracted, corrected, etc... is something suitable for a different conversation - and a patent or application status is irrelevant. What about working circuits that are never patented. They're not valid or don't work because they're not patented? She is right here in this thread telling you exactly what circuit to use. Why not use it? She is obviously staking her reputation on this circuit and that carries more weight than trivial nonsense like patent status.

Do you realize how many patents are granted that have devices that don't work? I'm not saying Rosemary's circuit doesn't work, just that a patent is not a requirement to have a valid circuit.

There is a US patent on a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE FROM GOD - go look it up if you don't believe me. So according to your logic, that patent is granted so it must work right?

The Czec govt is about the only one that I know that requires that something has to work in order to be given a patent - the pyramid shape razor blade sharpener is one example because it was proven to work. But again, still irrelevant.

The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet.

There have been people that couldn't get the wheel to spin on a Bedini SG circuit and then they blame John. Go figure...

Bedini always said "Don't change it until it works" meaning do it like the inventor says - Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper - then once it works, then change components and do other modifications but not before.

All your questions are NOT critical to this discussion or purpose of this thread. Again, Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper.
__________________
 
  #308  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:32 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hi Altair. I did spend the day on the answer. But I was glad of the question. As a matter of interest, how do you guys see the reversal of the voltage - that spike? Do you see it has being more discharge from the battery? Or do you see it as a result of the collapsing fields over the resistor when the battery is not able to discharge?

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. Altair

You're definitely right. I'll have to re-read the text. I should indeed have said that an open switch interrupts the flow from the battery and vice versa. Sorry if I implied otherwise. Definitely an error. I'll re-read it and edit.

The opposite polarity point - the magnetic fields over the inductor have first been extruded to allow the path for the zipon flow. That's during the ON period of the duty cycle. Then during the OFF period and they collapse to zero. That collapse - their movement to zero represents changing magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. That, in turn, induces the spike that manifests below zero. Then some ringing as this is repeated until the rining stops and the duty cycle then repeats. That first movement through zero - to me - respresents a change in polarity and a change in the directional flow of current.

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.

Not sure what you mean. Is there such a thing as a MOSFET without a body diode? If so, then I guess this may prove it. I really can't comment.

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 !)

Current flow is detectable and that's all that's needed. Again, as I understand it, an ammeter simply measures current from the extruded magnetic fields on a wire - which, in turn, measures the rate of transfer in the wire. But my problem with ammeters is that they don't usually measure at fast frequencies. And they do not distinguish between the direction of current flow. The circuit is intended to induce a reverse flow of current precisely to recharge the battery.

I'm going to try and get my head around why it could possibly be that current flow 'tries to hold it's direction?' I just don't understand it. Can you explain this?
__________________
 
  #309  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:36 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
@Aaron: I would be very glad to see your replication videos and data and hear your explanation of why the duty cycle problem that I have identified, makes no difference to you.

But regardless of that, if you would bother to actually read my posts you would have seen that I am NOT using the INCORRECT 555 timer circuit from AINSLIE's publication, and instead I am using a FG that can deliver a duty cycle that is known and trusted. And I have replicated some heating in the load. I have also compared this heating with heating produced by a straight DC source providing the same continuous power input as the Ainslie circuit provides on average at 3.7 percent ON.
There is no observable difference in the final temperature reached or the rate of temperature rise.
Thus, there is nothing that my build of the Ainslie circuit does, WHEN DRIVEN CORRECTLY AT 3.7 PERCENT ON, that isn't also done by straight DC at the same average power level.

This much at least is true:
"The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet."

In several of her publications she says that the mosfet isn't critical. Nevertheless I have tested now 4 different mosfets, and I will be glad to test the IRFPG50 as soon as I obtain one. And the "self oscillation" -- which has been variously described as "random non-periodic" "chaotic" and yet at the same time "resonant"...how do we know what's being talked about here, if there isn't a screen shot of a scope trace, and nobody else, NO MATTER THE MOSFET, is unable to reproduce it???? How do you know that I'm not seeing the same thing she was, but labelling it differently (like false triggering of the DSO)???

Would anyone care to place a little side wager? I say that the IRFPG50 mosfet will produce substantially the same results that I have gotten with the 2sk1548. Anybody say different? I'll even give odds.

Now, if someone would only tell me what the correct circuit is, that made the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper--because they both describe the SAME experiment but describe DIFFERENT CIRCUITS---??

Something isn't right here, and it has nothing to do with my attitude.

Now-my question again:

It's a simple question: Is the circuit diagram in the Quantum article correct or not?

Please answer yes or no.


If the answer is "Yes, it is incorrect", don't you think it's appropriate to make a correction?
Especially since that article has been around since 2002, and who knows how many people have tried to build it, find what I found, and then go on to simply dismiss Ainslie as someone who doesn't know what she's talking about---

If the answer is "No, it is the correct circuit used in the experiment"...then there are some more severe problems.

So which is it? Is the circuit correct or not?
__________________
 

Last edited by TinselKoala; 07-07-2009 at 07:48 PM.
  #310  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:56 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
@ gauss

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gauss View Post
Since you started this thread you should input your time to verify her claims. Instead of using longer and longer messages that lead nowhere. The other option is to let R-M present her findings in a more concrete form.

How hard can it be for R-M to send a device, make a video or have a presentation for professional engineers in SA???!

R-M or any of her friends have all the options, if she does not want to use either of them and you sit tight typing, how likely is this to work?

Aaron, please waste no more time on rhetoric, show us proof!!
It has been made abundantly clear that YOUR posts are no longer welcome in this thread.

The experiment discusses a self-oscillating effect, which you and TK have not shown. To claim that is a "replication" is not true and the same parts were not used.

Gauss - do NOT post in this thread again. I started this thread and I'm asking you to leave. You are combative and have been attacking members of this forum. If you cannot contain yourself, go post in some other forum and in threads where your misunderstanding and bad attitude is appropriate. This thread and forum is not appropriate for that.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #311  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:56 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post
Tinselkoala

You had some valid questions but with your antagonistic attitude you will most likely never get an answer.

Why would anyone want to help or answer your question when you are so insulting?

Rosemary has been kind enough to join our forum to help, she has no obligation too.
Do you want to read back through the posts since I've joined, and see who started insulting whom?

And why is it so difficult to give a straight answer to a simple question?

Why would anyone not say either

"OOPS, you're right, the Quantum diagram is wrong, it doesn't include the flyback diode, thanks for pointing that out, I'll publish a correction right away, and I'll also have my tech people look at the duty cycle issue"

OR

"You are wrong TK, the Quantum circuit is indeed correct and you can't even build a simple circuit and test it properly."

Why, after her talking about "patents that were allowed to lapse for the public good", isn't my question about the patents vs. patent applications answered simply with a link to the granted patents?

Has anyone actually been "helped" by the things Ainslie has posted here?
Has anyone actually been "helped" by the things I have posted here?
__________________
 
  #312  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:13 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
TinselKoala, I will leave my personal comments about you out of this post but will address it later. Here's the thing. You claim that by providing the same amount of power to a control using a continuous power input you gets the same temperature rise as is evident on the circuit using a switching device at 3.7% ON. Well then.

The energy at 3.7% on our circuit is delivered in two phases. The one relates to the ON cycle when the energy is delivered by the battery. The other relates to the OFF cycle when the energy is delivered back to the battery. Take a sample range of the voltages in both cycles, preferably in excess of 1 200 such samples and ideally over a reasonable sample range as your waveform seems to be periodic. If you use a tektronix - I believe you have one - then the sample range could be as great as 10 000 such samples.

You will see that some of the voltage samples will be represented as negative, and some will be represented as positive. Clearly the energy that is positive has come from the battery. And wherever the energy came from that is represented as negative voltage - it did not come from the battery. Then make a sum of all those voltages. Divide that sum by the number of samples. Then do your wattage analysis with that sum. If you're measuring across that shunt - from memory I think it is 0.5 Ohm - then the sum of the voltages divided by the Ohms value of that shunt resistor x battery voltage will give you the wattage that was delivered by the battery. You will find that that sum of the wattage delivered by the battery is LESS than the wattage dissipated at the load.

If you do the analysis like this you will find the gain. If you do not believe it is the correct way to do the analysis then I'm afraid you must argue with the experts.

And that is all that is required to prove the over unity claim. It will not matter what duty cycle you use. It will not matter what frequency you run the test at. The sum over the shunt resistor will always be less than the product over the load resistor. That's strictly in terms of classical analysis of energy delivered by the battery and dissipated at the load. You do not need to be a genius to see that the one will inevitably be greater than the other.

But your instruments need to be accurate enough to take in the full value of the negative voltage. And. If you do a measure of the rate at which your battery delivers its energy you will see that it is consistent with this sum. If you need to see if the battery in fact recharges - then do the two battery test described in this thread. And if you need to finally check the advantage to the battey then run a control along side the test. All these points have been repeated throughout all my postings and you continually choose to ignore them. Why?
__________________
 
  #313  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:25 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?

What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.
__________________
 
  #314  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:28 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
You say that I am not paying attention to your "explanations". Far from it. I am truly trying to understand several things. Such as why you have allowed an article with your name on it, which clearly contains several errors, to remain standing for 7 years without a correction being published. And I am trying to understand why, and how, you who are not an EE and who have said several times that it is not your area, yet you presume to teach us whose field it IS how to do power measurements--without even considering the effect of duty cycle--which you seem to think is handled automagically by the computation routine you have described. Do you understand what is meant by the phrase, "integration of the instantaneous power waveform"?
I find that extremely ironic. Your work is riddled with clear errors, some of which have been pointed out to you and many more which have not.

The assertions you make in your last post are unfounded and unsupported by data. Not just my data--yours as well.
And those of other researchers who have been trying this same scheme for many many years.
__________________
 

Last edited by TinselKoala; 07-07-2009 at 08:40 PM.
  #315  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:35 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 796
Because he only see what he wants too!
__________________
 
  #316  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:45 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
It has been made abundantly clear that YOUR posts are no longer welcome in this thread.

The experiment discusses a self-oscillating effect, which you and TK have not shown. To claim that is a "replication" is not true and the same parts were not used.

Gauss - do NOT post in this thread again. I started this thread and I'm asking you to leave. You are combative and have been attacking members of this forum. If you cannot contain yourself, go post in some other forum and in threads where your misunderstanding and bad attitude is appropriate. This thread and forum is not appropriate for that.
Until we can either reproduce Rosemary's claim to "self-oscillation" or see a screenshot from her illustrating what she's claiming, it must logically remain just that: a claim, without evidence.

And she has herself said that the particular MOSFET isn't critical. But then she's said a lot of things that have turned out to be, well, less than factual. And she published a circuit which people have been trying to build for SEVEN YEARS now, that is wrong, without correcting or retracting it.

Aaron, why aren't you concerned about these things?
__________________
 
  #317  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:50 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
And, I would also add, TinselKoala that I have never seen how you compute your wattage values. It intrigues me that you simply refer to them as 'standard'. There is nothing standard in the way wattage analysis on this circuit is required. It MUST take in the energy from the battery and the energy delivered back to the system by the resistor itself. My very first post pointed this out.

So, as you insist the system does not work - then show us those spreadsheets with that analysis.

And if you really want to find the 'sweet spot' the point at which you can get an optimal return - then just look at the values on you Fluke. It displays the dc average together with the ac. That difference - is the difference between the actual energy dissipated and the energy supplied. And the dc average invariably relates to the sum that is determined in the waveform dump that you may wish to prove on a spreadsheet. In other words the digital display function will be a quick guide to the best frequency and duty cycle.

And whatever your circuit - there will invariably be differences between wiring - induction on the resistor et al. Therefore you need to find that point by varying the frequency and the duty cycle to find that point. Just sweep through the duty cycle, check the displayed ac and dc values on your fluke and I'd say that within minutes you should find that gain.

To get the system to oscillate will - at its least - require a more comprehensive sweep of those duty cycles. There is no need to be fixated on our precise values. As mentioned your circuit components will never exactly replicate ours.
__________________
 
  #318  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:03 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?

What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.
Still dodging the simple questions, I see.

And once again, your post reveals that you aren't reading my posts. I clearly describe how my power calculations are made--more clearly than you do, that's for sure.

And I suggest to you, Rosemary, that you (or a colleague who knows how to read circuit diagrams) build your circuit and test it just as you have described above--the sweeping of duty cycles and freqs--and show us some scope shots. You just may learn something.

One thing you really should know is that DSOs like the FLUKE 199 are subject to some well-known errors, particularly with complex and spiky signals, and you should not always trust their readouts.
__________________
 
  #319  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:10 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
concerns

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
Aaron, why aren't you concerned about these things?
If the magazine article needs correcting, it should be corrected but for a "replication" attempt, Rosemary said to focus on the paper, etc... and she is the authority on her own experiment.

I'm here to learn like everyone else or like most everyone else I would imagine and find the concept fascinating.

Even if the exact mosfet part isn't critical - because in concept others should act the same, it is in my opinion a good idea to get the exact one. On ebay, there are a few for about $5 each and $5 shipping so $10 for 1 if you buy just one. So, they are available.

Personally, I think it is important to use the same one. Even 2 identical components of the same part # will have differences. 2n2222 transistor, some will go negative and some won't. Two "identical" 680 ohm resistors may have a couple ohms different, etc... Many of us have seen this. There may be something to that exact mosfet that is required like the "anomalous" 2n2222 and a few other transistors.

TK, I enjoyed your videos and am looking forward to more and hope you are able to use the same part #'s. If you do or not is up to you.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #320  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:13 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
The following questions from TinselKoala's post.

Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?
I've answered this.

What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?
I've answered this.

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?
I've answered this.

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.
I do not dodge them. But nor am I obliged to continually answer then.
__________________
 
  #321  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:27 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
One thing you really should know is that DSOs like the FLUKE 199 are subject to some well-known errors, particularly with complex and spiky signals, and you should not always trust their readouts. TinselKoala

Spescom - one of our accreditors - got fluke to write a letter to guarantee that the results on our meter were accurate within the frequency range tested. That's in the paper. But the point is that the more accurate the instrument the greater the evident gain. We've tested on Tektronix which in SA costs upwards of R250 000.00 and got the same results. We also went to the trouble of getting a calibration certificate for all the instruments that we used.

But the actual final proof of the pudding is in comparing the draw down rate in controls. The control - in the test result depleted within the time that the test batteries hardly showed a drop.

The other thing is that you do not need that oscillating frequency to prove a gain. The point about that oscillation is that it is well known. It is a problem when used for signalling. It is clamped out through the simple means of applying pressure to the wire. We show - through the published test - that that effect exponentially improves the efficiencies - well above any other frequency tested.

But the paper refers to various other circuits, using nfets, inductors, resistors at different points in the circuit. Whichever way the circuit is configured - provided that there is a switching cycle and that the counter electromotive force is able to be applied back to the battery supply source - the gain is inevitable.

Therefore do I wonder at your measurement of the power from the battery. If you indeed take a series of waveforms and multiple samples of each waveform - you need do nothing more than sum the voltages, divide it by the number of samples, and then do the analysis as mentioned. There is always a clear and evident gain.
__________________
 
  #322  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:44 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys, I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

But, as I see it, all that is needed is some accurate assessment of the energy returned to the battery. Is it that difficult to get hold of the correct measuring instruments? Perhaps Aaron you could advise me here. I can't see any other way of working out the energy in that 'spike' without the meter that can tell the difference between the two current cycles.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-07-2009 at 09:52 PM. Reason: additional qualification
  #323  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:02 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Mark - thanks for your support. It was squeezed in betwen the head butts - but always nice to know that there are those who help the cause, so to speak.

Am not sure of TinselKoala's actual motives as his aggression seems excessive. But time will tell.

In any event - thank you again. It did not go unnoticed nor unappreciated.
__________________
 
  #324  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:41 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,305
Motive

Rosemary
TK has been asking for your help since 6/17 post#84 regarding his replication
of the circuit
He joined the forum to get your feedback on 6/23 post #99

He does things at a fast pace ,perhaps the time factor of the last few weeks
[since his replication with accompanying video's[by the way not typical here or elsewhere]has made him appear aggressive
He's a good guy a GREAT guy, seeking the truth[not inferring anything here!! ]

Chet
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 07-07-2009 at 10:47 PM.
  #325  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:36 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
kHz MHz

digression - it is curious why is it that countless people on forums like this one cannot properly write the units they are using? It is understood that this forum attracts many amateurs, and uneducated people as well, but guys there are some limits to the ignorance. "h" means hour (or prefix hecto). "Hz" means Hertz. Others can get what you are trying to say only because of the context- otherwise it is often complete nonsense. I see many times "mhz", "a", or another idiotic abbr like hrz. "m" means milli, "M" means mega, "k"-kilo, "K"- Kelvin, "A" -Amperes, "V"-Volts, "s"-second. There are no other options.

some more units: Essentials of the SI: Base & derived units
__________________
 
  #326  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:38 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
The following questions from TinselKoala's post.

Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?
I've answered this.
So the circuit in the Quantum paper is incorrect. Why don't you correct it?

Quote:
What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?
I've answered this.
So the Quantum circuit is incorrect, doesn't mention the diode at all, but the EIT circuit with diode is correct and was used to generate the data in the paper. Yes?

Quote:

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?
I've answered this.
Where? I've been reading the thread and I don't see the links to the granted patents. All I recall is you saying that you allowed the "patents" to lapse, which doesn't make sense as they aren't old enough to lapse, if they were granted patents. But it does make sense if they were only applications. So could you please give the links to the granted patents, just one more time?

Quote:

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.
I do not dodge them. But nor am I obliged to continually answer then.
You could have just answered them once, straight out with yes or no answers. But first you don't answer them, then you say you did.


Since we now all agree that the Quantum article has an incorrect circuit in it, when can we expect a correction or retraction?
__________________
 
  #327  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:41 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
One thing you really should know is that DSOs like the FLUKE 199 are subject to some well-known errors, particularly with complex and spiky signals, and you should not always trust their readouts. TinselKoala

Spescom - one of our accreditors - got fluke to write a letter to guarantee that the results on our meter were accurate within the frequency range tested. That's in the paper. But the point is that the more accurate the instrument the greater the evident gain. We've tested on Tektronix which in SA costs upwards of R250 000.00 and got the same results. We also went to the trouble of getting a calibration certificate for all the instruments that we used.

But the actual final proof of the pudding is in comparing the draw down rate in controls. The control - in the test result depleted within the time that the test batteries hardly showed a drop.

The other thing is that you do not need that oscillating frequency to prove a gain. The point about that oscillation is that it is well known. It is a problem when used for signalling. It is clamped out through the simple means of applying pressure to the wire. We show - through the published test - that that effect exponentially improves the efficiencies - well above any other frequency tested.

But the paper refers to various other circuits, using nfets, inductors, resistors at different points in the circuit. Whichever way the circuit is configured - provided that there is a switching cycle and that the counter electromotive force is able to be applied back to the battery supply source - the gain is inevitable.

Therefore do I wonder at your measurement of the power from the battery. If you indeed take a series of waveforms and multiple samples of each waveform - you need do nothing more than sum the voltages, divide it by the number of samples, and then do the analysis as mentioned. There is always a clear and evident gain.

OK, it's clear that I am not going to get anywhere. Let me just ask you one more question, then I'm done with you.

What are you using to heat your home?
__________________
 
  #328  
Old 07-07-2009, 11:53 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
Rosemary
TK has been asking for your help since 6/17 post#84 regarding his replication
of the circuit
He joined the forum to get your feedback on 6/23 post #99

He does things at a fast pace ,perhaps the time factor of the last few weeks
[since his replication with accompanying video's[by the way not typical here or elsewhere]has made him appear aggressive
He's a good guy a GREAT guy, seeking the truth[not inferring anything here!! ]

Chet
Ramset, seriously, you dont need to take him under your Wings, he dont ask for help anymore, he Force it, And that is not the right Attitude.
And if he dont get it, it sounds like, he wanna shout out load HOAX.
Behaviors from Peoples like this are more the Reason, when People say, it dont work, and resign.
For myself, i dont understand, why he cant talk in a normal Manner,
maybe he still did not learn it till now.

And yes, i still can figure more from all others Posts, what are made here,
even when i am still only pop in anymore, as from his Posts.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
  #329  
Old 07-08-2009, 12:06 AM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,205
Hi folks, I really wonder if some in this thread are interested in the truth, folks its a simple wire wound resistor with a flyback diode recirculated back into the resistor. Why can i say with some certainty that some are not interested in the truth, the only one to comment on my recent results with just the resistor have been Rosemary, how interesting. At this point, its obvious we have much distracting going on here. I built the circuit with just the resistor and it works, and i would assume with proper part matching and tuning one could achieve better results.
peace love light
__________________
 
  #330  
Old 07-08-2009, 12:16 AM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,305
Reason

Jolt
The last thing that I would want to be a part of is discouraging [in any way]
a curious mind /inventor
Please excuse my N.Y. attitude
But I would like to know?

Rosemary

"" What are you using to heat your home""
If we could use your circuit to heat our homes etc.... that is the quest[not question]
Chet
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 07-08-2009 at 12:19 AM.
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 12:56 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