Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


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


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

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

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #361  
Old 07-08-2009, 10:23 PM
Cloxxki Cloxxki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 454
Thanks Rosemary. I used to work for the European Patent Office actually. Only as an interim via an agency though, so I still get to pay my income taxes.

Once this proves to work as claimed in the application, I may be of use to get this further out there. It is my (hereby decided) policy though to try and involve an open source inventor, to not use a good thing for something the inventor would consider a bad cause. That's the moral intellectual property or whatever we should call it.
I paid quite a bit to heat my 1930 appartment last winter, it would be nice to get something more efficient going.
__________________
 

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

  #362  
Old 07-08-2009, 10:58 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
"Rosemary says that it “works” with many different transistors."

Except, of course, the ones that TinselKoala uses!!!

2sk1548
2sk1120
2sk1934
2sk1365
2sk5138
2sk1603
IRFP450--long turn-off time

and, just for grins, BU508A--an expensive experiment, I couldn't get the smoke back in...

I would call that a bad bad Transistor Karma
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
  #363  
Old 07-08-2009, 11:51 PM
gotoluc gotoluc is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundloop View Post
Hi,

I have designed a experimental PCB for the RA circuit. The component values
are as in the papers but people can change the values if they want different duty cycle or oscillator frequency. I will be building this circuit later on (I'm on vacation right now) and will report back when done. I will be having 23 extra
PCB's to give away for free, to anybody that want one. But, you must wait
until after my vacation. My hope is that this will inspire people to actually test
this circuit in their own setting.

The Eagle CAD (from Cadsoft) design files can be downloaded here:

Index of /ufoufoufoufo

Thanks to Rosemary Ainslie for providing the information for free.

Best regards,
Groundloop from Norway.
Groundloop my friend

it is nice to see you at the Energetic Forum and as always your willingness and generosity to help everyone.

I would be grateful in receiving one PC board

For all who don't know Groundloop, he is an exceptional researcher from the OU Forum. Energetic can only gain with his participation.

Luc
__________________
 
  #364  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:08 AM
Groundloop Groundloop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 110
Rosemary,

Thanks for the positive words. :-)

Luc,

I think it will be smart to send most of the PCB to you since most builders
is from the US anyway. Then you can mail PCB to others. Postal cost for
sending a letter to US from Norway is more than a single PCB costs me.
Do you think that this is OK for you? I will compensate you for your costs
by adding some other electronics in the parcel to you.

It will take some time, though. I will not have the PCB's until last
week of August.

Nice to see you on this forum. :-)

Groundloop.
__________________
 
  #365  
Old 07-09-2009, 01:07 AM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
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.
- what a pitty that I don't have such a scope, because I have tested this circuit with 10$ multimeter and overlooked all the free energy

Quote:
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.
- instead of setting the same amperage (of which one is artificially doubled) - better set the same temperature output on both sets (including transistors into equation) – you will see exactly the same state of discharge of both batteries.

Quote:
…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.
- I don’t fully understand how you do your calculations, but please remember, that during the second phase voltage is negative – but amperage is still positive (unless it changes
__________________
 
  #366  
Old 07-09-2009, 02:21 AM
gotoluc gotoluc is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundloop View Post
Rosemary,

Thanks for the positive words. :-)

Luc,

I think it will be smart to send most of the PCB to you since most builders
is from the US anyway. Then you can mail PCB to others. Postal cost for
sending a letter to US from Norway is more than a single PCB costs me.
Do you think that this is OK for you? I will compensate you for your costs
by adding some other electronics in the parcel to you.

It will take some time, though. I will not have the PCB's until last
week of August.

Nice to see you on this forum. :-)

Groundloop.
Yes Groundloop, I would be happy to help out and no need to compensate me since you have done so much for me already

But before you go through the trouble and expense please make sure you have enough requests.

Thank you my friend

Luc
__________________
 
  #367  
Old 07-09-2009, 06:31 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
I've realised that I need to explain why I reference the patent at all? It's because I need disclose the extent of the patent. In other words it defines what MAY NOT BE PATENTED EVER. And for those interested in this - I have, on record, written invitation to register the patent at the end of the period of publication. Indeed I was twice invited to register, the one prior to its lapse and the other, notwithstanding the expiry period - after it had lapsed. Both letters are on record. The patent was indeed approved, in every particular, else I would not have been invited to register.

Hope that clarifies things.
Regards,
Rosemary
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-09-2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason: fuller clarification
  #368  
Old 07-09-2009, 07:34 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
henieck - I am blown away at the quality of your reporting. And when I think that you're explaining all this in a second language - the jaw drops. Really amazing. But it's a complex report and I'm going to try and deal with this in a separate post. I'm just quoting what I think are the salient features in your report. Yet again, it's very well written and really comprehensive. You are a real challenge to me henieck - because you're clearly a seeker and you are determined to find the answer to our claims of overunity in the spirit which is best. EXPERIMENTAL PROOF.

By varying adjustable resistor I found that the flyback gains the most when I have minimal setting on the variable resistor, so only the value of protective resistor 510Ohms which I had in place from different application was left between timer and transistor.
I take it that you're saying the best gains on a low duty cycle?

In this setup I have noticed that when the flyback diode is connected back to battery – than amperage almost doubles comparing to the situation with the diode disconnected. This flyback gain, like Rosemary said, was present in very wide spectrum of frequency and duty cycle except higher frequencies, and was always less then the input value.
Is there consensus that when current flows through the diode that the battery is not delivering that energy? The assumption is that the energy through the diode does not come from the battery as the battery is not able to discharge during the OFF period of the duty cycle. In effect the current flow (electrons ) must, therefore, be coming from the inductance in the resistor? This is an important point. I'll get back to it.

I'm not sure of the cap measurement but - again - I'll get back to it. The actual frequency is - again - something I'll get back to. And I get it that you tested the battery under mult re-charge conditions to establish the actual watt hour rating at plus/minus 5 hours.

There was slightly higher initial voltage (0.16V higher comparing to no flyback example), but the battery was very freshly recharged and I have started the experiment almost immediately. I was one step from proving to myself existence of free energy, so I was excited probably almost as much as Lindemann sitting in self perpetuating lavatory…
Only quoting this again because it's just so descriptive. And reference to rise in temperature - is interesting. But there is a real relevance to the fact that the transistor did not get hot.


But there is something like information war in energy field – and judging form examples of legendary Howard Johnson, who was supposed to invent permanent magnet “perpetum mobile”, but who didn’t have any turning device in his workshop; form Rosemary’s example and probably others – I am getting more skeptical about this free energy thing. Does anybody know any other device which is a bit more promising than that one, worth of duplicating? Seriously, there is so much to dig through, that perhaps somebody could help with this – what happened to magnetic Vankel idea, water fuel cell, Bedini’s motors or other. Is any of that successful? Can anybody generate any “free” E? or everybody is generating free E but nobody mysteriously can close the loop

Again - I'm simply quoting this because it's so articulate and heartfelt. We do have a positive answer here henieck. And, unless I die first, I'm going to try and explain it.

In the final conclusion - the circuit, thanks to the diode, circulates the same energy twice. Ampmeter shows almost double value of what really is dissipated as heat. In the end of the multi hour exercise, the total sum of Joules which went through the meter is ridiculously high – nearly double of what is really available in the battery (determined in the previously conducted controlled discharge) – therefore it may give the false impression that battery is not discharging that quickly. (so many amps went through but the battery still keeps strong . Moreover, during operation without the flyback diode the transistor gets hot. During operation with that diode connected back to the battery - the transistor does not get that hot. That energy is being “moved” to, and finally turned into heat in the coil – what may give another faulty impression, that not only we have battery charging – but also the same extra energy which charges the battery, also somehow rises up the coil’s temperature
OK. This will be my starting point. I'll answer all these points, or try to answer all these points in the next post.

I hope I didn’t kill this very promising thread and people will check by themselves how much of free energy it generates and find playing with this idiotic circuit interesting and intellectually deeply rewarding… Just don’t take too big battery like 50Ah for one mosfet, because full and undeniable evaluation will take many days. I hope someone will throw, that for sure I have made the mistake, not Rosemary, and took all the truly free energy as circulated twice – and many people will get excited again…
Not Rosemary? I think I may be able to explain this? Will you at least let me try?
__________________
 
  #369  
Old 07-09-2009, 07:48 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
henieck - I think the problem of what makes 'current flow' goes to the heart of this problem. But at this stage - all I am asking is this. Does your battery discharge energy during that period of the duty cycle when the switch is closed? In other words the 'spike' - is it a result of more energy coming from the battery? (Sorry I posted instead of preview. This looks edited - but it isn't.)

IF it's coming from the battery then your point is valid. But, by the same token - if it's not coming from the battery where does it come from? So really to answer this we need to go back to basics. According to Inductive Laws - we're taught. Changing electric fields induce magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. That's not open to question. We know this. Then the ON cycle from the battery enables current to flow through the circuit. During that flow, which is instantaneously evident throughout the circuit - that same flow establishes a voltage across the load resistor. And, as Donovan pointed out, the rate of flow is determined by the level of voltage measured across the load resistor. The two are directly proportional and measurable in terms of know classical measurement. So measure that voltage - square that value and then divide it by the Ohms value of the resistor - v^2/r - to determine the actual wattage delivered by the battery during this ON period. Again. We now have the actual measure of the energy delivered by the battery.

During the OFF cycle - when the switch is open - the battery is effectively disconnected from the circuit. It allows no further flow of current from the battery. NO MORE ENERGY. Whatever now happens on the circuit is not the result of more energy from the battery. And in the final analysis we are trying to evaluate the amount of energy that is coming from the battery. So - we all know there's an immediate spike - as you rightly pointed out - followed by some ringing until the duty cycle either defaults to zero or moves into the next cycle - depending on the frequency of that duty cycle. So what actually happens to cause that spike?

My take - which is strictly in terms of Inductive Laws is this. The potential difference from the battery supply source is disconnected. The current flow from the battery is 'stopped' - instantaneously. The voltage across the load collapses. The voltage is simply a measure of the magnetic fields that were first extruded as a result of that current flow. These fields collapse to zero. The measure of that collapse is equal to the applied voltage during the previous ON cycle and also a reasonably exact measure of the energy first applied by the battery. These collapsing fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. Now the inductor becomes a supplier of energy. In effect the resistor becomes its own energy source.

It, these changing magnetic fields, induce a reverse voltage across the resistor equal to the product of the voltage over time that was first applied by the battery. The time to manifest that voltage is reduced. So it gains in voltage what it loses in time to manifest that voltage. Hence the level of voltage which is far greater than the level of voltage applied during the ON time. But the actual energy delivered is some small fraction less than the ON time. The ringing that follows this event - is the continual and gradual discharge of that energy in ever smaller increments until ALL the energy delivered during the ON time is dissipated or discharged during this OFF time.

SO. If your ammeter is showing a doubling of the current then your actual question should be - where does that 'doubled' current come from? It has NOT come from the battery - not in terms of classical analysis and not in terms of my definition of current flow. And the next question is - where does it go? If it results in a 'doubled' discharge of amperage from the battery - then there is no gain. But how could it have come from the battery? The battery delivers a monodirectional current flow. It cannot recharge from this cycle. But configure a simple test and you WILL see a recharge cycle.

Here's the test. Yet again, apologies for the repetition. Find a second battery. Attach the negative rail ONLY to this second battery. Put the diode to the positive terminal of that second battery. And watch the battery recharge. At the same time watch the temperature over the load resistor. That wont change. And the battery will recharge.

I think I've covered it all and will post. Hopefully it'll stick. I keep losing posts.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-09-2009 at 08:28 AM.
  #370  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:08 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
henieck's conclusion.

In the final conclusion - the circuit, thanks to the diode, circulates the same energy twice.
How can this be? It first heats the resistor and then heats it again. Or does it simply go back to the battery to recharge this? Or neither? And how can energy conform to any conservation law at all if it is first dissipated and then recycled? Aren't you arguing our point here?

Ammeter shows almost double value of what really is dissipated as heat.
That doubled value? Again, does that come from the battery? And the fact is that even you saw an increase in the temperature over the resistor. Nor could you contradict an evident rise in battery voltage - albeit intermittent. I would not expect a four fold or any increase in the heat dissipated unless you had that resonating frequency. But I would expect an over unity result.

In the end of the multi hour exercise, the total sum of Joules which went through the meter is ridiculously high – nearly double of what is really available in the battery (determined in the previously conducted controlled discharge) – therefore it may give the false impression that battery is not discharging that quickly
Please explain why this is an erroneous impression. If, indeed, the energy dissipated exceeded the watt hour rating of your battery then I would have concluded that there's a gain.

(so many amps went through but the battery still keeps strong . Moreover, during operation without the flyback diode the transistor gets hot. During operation with that diode connected back to the battery - the transistor does not get that hot. That energy is being “moved” to, and finally turned into heat in the coil – what may give another faulty impression, that not only we have battery charging – but also the same extra energy which charges the battery, also somehow rises up the coil’s temperature
Again henieck. If the energy that was previously lost in the transistor is now being transferred to the load resistor - would than not suggest that the extra energy was there - but simply overlooked?

My own conclusion is that you're actually measuring a gain. But before I can show you this I need to ascertain something. Is there some classical reference that precludes energy coming from the inductor or the inductive components of a resistor. To the best of my knowledge there is not?

Your ammeter is not able to show a reverse current flow. It only gives a product of all the current in the system. You need to establish how much energy first came from the battery and how much then came from the resistor. The sum of the two relates to the actual battery draw down rate as the energy from the resistor is returned to the battery.
__________________
 
  #371  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:09 AM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
disinformation spreaders indeed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
@ 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.
- that is right, but it doesn't mean that to make manifest this surge didn't cost anything energetically. It takes WORK to produce this phenomenon...
__________________
 
  #372  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:23 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
henieck, as a final point - you've got the apparatus at hand. Just measure the applied voltage from the battery across the load resistor. You will see that it conforms in all aspects to Ohms Law. There is no extra energy applied by the battery to store those fields that then collapse.

I think that's enough to go on with. But I see that - at its root - I'll have to convince you that current flow may be better explained by my little zipons.

I think the only barrier that you have at seeing the gain is psychological. Your report indeed appears to show that gain. EDIT Glad to see your on line. I hope you'll address some of these points.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-09-2009 at 09:25 AM.
  #373  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:59 AM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
henieck - I am blown away at the quality of your reporting. And when I think that you're explaining all this in a second language - the jaw drops.
- thanks, I find it difficult to use tenses in English, because in my native language there are only three. If I repeat any errors please let me know- because without the feedback from the “environment” there is no way to learn.

Quote:
You are a real challenge to me henieck - because you're clearly a seeker and you are determined to find the answer to our claims of overunity in the spirit which is best. EXPERIMENTAL PROOF.
- that is right, and I am grateful that somebody like you fully disclosed the “free energy zipon technology” and was willing to answer few additional questions – so it was possible attempt to replicate the experiment.

Quote:
By varying adjustable resistor I found that the flyback gains the most when I have minimal setting on the variable resistor, so only the value of protective resistor 510Ohms which I had in place from different application was left between timer and transistor.
I take it that you're saying the best gains on a low duty cycle?
- no, it was just about the technicalities of the mosfet’s gate input I had. Unimportant really, but I have included as many details about my setup as possible.

Quote:
In this setup I have noticed that when the flyback diode is connected back to battery – than amperage almost doubles comparing to the situation with the diode disconnected. This flyback gain, like Rosemary said, was present in very wide spectrum of frequency and duty cycle except higher frequencies, and was always less then the input value.
Is there consensus that when current flows through the diode that the battery is not delivering that energy?
- this I can’t be entirely sure of, because I don’t know the exact timing of all the phenomenon taking place in this circuit – but to my understanding that is basically right, although there is at least possibility of some overlapping in certain conditions – I imagine.

Quote:
…what happened to magnetic Vankel idea, water fuel cell, Bedini’s motors or other. Is any of that successful? Can anybody generate any “free” E? or everybody is generating free E but nobody mysteriously can close the loop [/I][/B]
Again - I'm simply quoting this because it's so articulate and heartfelt. We do have a positive answer here henieck. And, unless I die first, I'm going to try and explain it.
- to me the reality is the ultimate, almighty, god-like authority. No pop, no professor of physics, no Rosemary, no friend – but the reality itself. But in order to understand the reality you have to have the right tools of cognition. Now, suddenly we are talking about philosophy. One has to use his senses, and use logic to interpret the results. That is why I don’t care who specifically is talking (no authority) – but what is the actual message. That is why I listen to you very carefully.

In the meantime I am making some additional measurements to check the results from all directions and possible approaches. So I am checking how much work is necessary to make the amount of heat I have observed during switching experiment. So I hooked up a variable power supply to the coil and we will see how all of it matches with the typical, DC approach. Maybe here there will be an anomaly – because so far I have just compared switching with and without the feedback diode. The result was that amount of heat is most probably very comparable in both cases, but I haven’t made the exact measurements yet. For this (the easiest way) in my opinion the transistor and the coil must be placed in one compartment together and not too much power applied so it will not overheat to the point of destroying the transistor. It can be just any container, not necessarily insulated one, just so we can read how high is the temperature inside the box when both transistor and coil works together. Running the experiment with the diode almost all the heat is dissipated in the coil – while when conducted without the diode the switching transistor dissipates great part of energy in the form of heat.

Ok, guys, don’t give up. Even debunker henieck said that the amperes meter showed ridiculously high energy. Take it out of the context and run with it… What an irony – I wanted to be an advocate of it…
__________________
 
  #374  
Old 07-09-2009, 11:58 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Apologies for so many consecutive posts but I would very much like to share something that I saw on one of the Discovery programmes aimed at learning more about the human 'mind'. The example was a little girl who was able to get a sweet out of a black box by series of complicated manouvres shown to her by the experimenter. So was a chimpanzee. Both learned the required series of steps. Then the blind was taken off the box and both could see a short cut to the 'steps' needed to get to the sweets. The chimp dispensed with the ritualised extra steps. The little girl did not. She faithfully performed all the steps albeit that ALL were not required. The conclusion was that something in the wiring of all of us requires an excessive respect for prior learning. Clearly the girl was more intelligent. But, notwithstanding the benefit of this IQ, she did not exploit the obvious.

It is relevant in this context. We have all relied on our giants in physics to forge the path, so to speak to our understanding in physics. In this, I'm including all of them - from the early Greek classicists to our modern classicists - right up to those giants in quantum physics who effectively 'opened' the actual atom itself to general view. It's an extraordinary history. And it has all concluded and been parcelled into the Laws of the Conservation of Energy. It's an extraordinary feat. It's an achievement that is probably the ultimate pride of the human intellect. It has effectively launched us into our new technological age. And this new age, this new era of discovery, is itself gaining ground on newer and newer dimensions of understanding and application and at pace. Progress is now evident on an exponential and unprecedented basis - so much so that actually leaves the most of all gagging - just trying to keep up.

But, like that little girl, learning seems to be a process that is 'hard wired' into us. It is almost as if we 'give up' the need to apply our own logical faculties to a question, and simply rely on those experts who have gone before us. This does not, in any way, mean to imply that we cannot follow that logic that has been forged by those giants. But it is my experience that the actual 'steps of logic' required to find those conclusions - are best understood by experts and those experts are usually academics. Therefore the essence of all that knowledge is encapsulted in our universities and academies throughout the world. And these experts - who have mastered the tedious logic required to advance this learning, fully respect and value that knowledge and, with good reason. They effectively protect it against pollutant counter claims - which is how they view any claims that exceed or confront their Conservation Laws.

But this is both the strength and the weakness of science. Science is based on experimental evidence. And Theory must give way to fact. So. If there is evidence of any experiment that flies in the face of those conservation laws - on any rigorous or moral basis, it is probably required that such should be studied. But herein lies the rub. If he finds something that contradicts his logic - then that logic is wrong. And his entire life has been spent in applying that logic. Therefore he is predisposed to ignoring that evidence in favour of his logic. Like the little girl - he must conclude that the evidence of his senses is at fault. Or the presentation of the evidence is at fault. And in no way can his own reasoning, the foundations of logic be at fault. They remain impeachable.

For the first time in a long time, and rather fortunately, that underlying logic has been called to question and it is now being openly addressed. There appears to be a need for a new force to explain certain evidence in the spin of galaxies that retains their momentum in defiance of their mass. There are also, confusingly, other paradoxes that variously relate to the wave/particle duality and to the evidence of superluminal communication. This has been proven in the adjustment of paired photons through space - and within the space of no evident time at all. These things are counter-intuitive or to put it as it is, they are illogical. They do not conform to the old school. And they seem to require what is identified, oxymoronically - as dark energy and it's constituent particle - dark matter. A force that is only identified by default on matter that cannot be seen.

And this force has been identified for I do not know how many years now, by geniuses such as Tesla and even Bedini. I am not sure how many such people are out there - but it has even been required within the sanctuaries of those academic campuses themselves. This was discovered through the exotic mathematics of our newly emergent string theorists. All point to the existence of an unseen particle that is required to be neutral, and is probably a magnetic dipole. This is also my conclusion. I find that within the constraints of prior learning, which fortunately in my case has not been classical, this is the explanation - the thing - the particle - that 'best fits'. But I also see it as the basis of all the known and evident forces. A sort of full circle. It is the very thing that generates the very forces that are defined by our Laws of Conservation. And its relevance to this thread, and whether right or wrong, the model that I developed also proposes that this is the same force that generates our electric current flow.

The simple point of this essay is to propose that current flow may not be the flow of electrons as has been proposed by classicists. If it is not, and if current flow is, in fact, determined by the flow of these magnetic dipoles as suggested, then the proposal is also that it is more fundamental than the nuclear force itself and therefore only requires the conservation of charge. This is the object of the test. And if the test is replicated then it proves the existence of this particle. And if it proves the existence of the particle then we have some means to better use, if not defeat, the forces themselves. Certainly, at its least, it will defeat our Conservation Laws. And this is a good thing provided it also results in the cleaner promotion of all our energy uses. But to get to an understanding of it we should follow the example, not of the little girl, but of the Chimp. We need to use our own logic to increase our own understanding of the subject.
__________________
 
  #375  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:13 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
henieck, as a final point - you've got the apparatus at hand. Just measure the applied voltage from the battery across the load resistor. You will see that it conforms in all aspects to Ohms Law.
- yes, indeed. That seems to be correct.

Quote:
There is no extra energy applied by the battery to store those fields that then collapse.
- this is not true - but it is just my opinion, which both we are trying to change here. The energy to form magnetic field is taken from the battery at the very first moment of applied current. I don’t know, because I don’t have the oscilloscope, if there is any initial surge of power detectable. I can imagine the situation that it may be not present. But there is a current flow. How do you know, how much of it is goes to heat and how much goes to form magnetic field? I know the whole your point is based on the assumption, that zero energy expenditure goes to form the magnetic field, that this is done for free by zipons, but unfortunately this is simply not true, and simple, little Ohm Law exercise you propose doesn't enable us to form such far fetching conclusions like yours. This is false conclusion. Please revise it by different means. Maybe the amount of energy which is transformed into heat is initially diminished until the constant magnetic field is established, and no more energy is required to sustain its presence? Than the current “sees” only resistive part of the coil's characteristics. Just a thought…

Quote:
I'll have to convince you that current flow may be better explained by my little zipons.
- I am sorry Rosemary, all I need is not another hallucination or theory – but I must see the undeniable, real results first. I didn’t try to hard to understand your theory, it is complex and I am not into theories, as you know. You say that I am a challenge to you – but I think that the reality is challenging, not me


Quote:
I think the only barrier that you have at seeing the gain is psychological.
-yes, the problem as a whole is psychological. I have invested so many years of deceitful lack of education that even when I have the true results in front of my eyes I simply refuse to see it on the conceptual level. I have based my entire career and life experience on unity interpretation and now it is not easy to suddenly admit that all these years I have simply wasted. What I know- I know it so well and it is embedded so deeply, that any contradictory idea induces very unpleasant cognitive dissonance- which I don’t know how to deal with, and don’t want to know how to know. I strive as much as I possibly can to avoid it - so in order to maintain integrity and avoid rebuilding the whole knowledge base and past experiences - I have to distort or delete some parts of the present reality and have to stay within my well known comfort zone. This way I preserve the remnants of my self esteem. I have to deceit myself no matter what, because the possible psychological consequences to me seems to be so hard to deal with. Now, how is it with YOU, Rosemary?
__________________
 
  #376  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:34 PM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,178
Hi folks, Henieck I want to thank you for such honesty, I fully understand what you mean about human comfort zones, as I see it very clearly to varying degrees in people i know, as well as myself im sure to some degree. You know you should read Peter L. attraction motor thread if you have not already because its almost the same idea and could be a way to help clear that academic conditioning a little more.
peace love light
__________________
 
  #377  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:59 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
We need to use our own logic to increase our own understanding of the subject.
- you say a lot about logic in your essay. There is only ONE LOGIC. If you change it - it ceases to be the logic, no matter how you call it. Just stop rewriting the reality in your head and start to apply some legitimate, proven logic, based on sensory perception to your circuit’s performance. Sure, that every expert will confirm, that this is the way to calculate power – but it is pulled out of full context. You have invented the circuit that unnecessarily make additional portion of energy circulate. It is just like you had two bank accounts (charging and discharging battery) and was swapping or circulating the same money (energy) over and over again (using small portion of it besides). At the end of the day you may have very high and impressive volume of transactions – but it doesn’t mean that you have become a millionaire! Every expert will confirm, that they have used certified computers and highest bookkeeping standards, and that the volume of few millions of dollars was no doubt undeniably REAL. But my battery is f. empty! I cannot pull out all those millions at the same time which I can clearly see on my "certified" print-outs. I simply debunk that you are a millionaire. It is just an illusion based on faulty logic (which, logically - is not logic). Don’t change your logic at this critical moment, because it is literally all you have to get out from this trap. Not only you will be equally pore (no millionaire) but in addition to that problem you will become insane as well. Are you going to end up in psychiatric facility among other insane people and the only difference will be not the process you are going through – but its content – many believe that they are the Jesuses (very many of them , others - that they have discovered zipons…
__________________
 
  #378  
Old 07-09-2009, 01:52 PM
Veggiel Veggiel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Apologies for so many consecutive posts but I would very much like to share something that I saw on one of the Discovery programmes aimed at learning more about the human 'mind'. The example was a little girl who was able to get a sweet out of a black box by series of complicated manouvres shown to her by the experimenter. So was a chimpanzee. Both learned the required series of steps. Then the blind was taken off the box and both could see a short cut to the 'steps' needed to get to the sweets. The chimp dispensed with the ritualised extra steps. The little girl did not. She faithfully performed all the steps albeit that ALL were not required. The conclusion was that something in the wiring of all of us requires an excessive respect for prior learning. Clearly the girl was more intelligent. But, notwithstanding the benefit of this IQ, she did not exploit the obvious.
Just for the people who are interested, here is the video from Human Ape (with Dutch subtitles).

YouTube - Human Ape (2007) [3/6]
__________________
 
  #379  
Old 07-09-2009, 02:15 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
henieck, there was a time when it was logical that the earth was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the illness was the result of individual or collective sin - and on and on. At the turn of the century it was logical that one could not split the atom, that there was only one galaxy the Milky Way and that flight was impossible. Logic is not the point. It is collective assumption that I am addressing. And this changes with time.

But there is one point that is true. Every new perpspective, be it a view into the atom or a view of our earth in relation to the universe, every introduction of a new idea is criticised as being based on some new level of insanity. If I were not accused of being insane then I would very much doubt that I would thereby also be close to the truth.

My own logic does not need the assurance of historical fact. Nor am I insane. And I would thank you not to tell me what I may or may not write. I woud not presume to prescribe your own contributions.
__________________
 
  #380  
Old 07-09-2009, 02:55 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
henieck - I think the problem of what makes 'current flow' goes to the heart of this problem. But at this stage - all I am asking is this. Does your battery discharge energy during that period of the duty cycle when the switch is closed? In other words the 'spike' - is it a result of more energy coming from the battery?
- of course not - that is - the battery only delivers the energy during the "on" part of the cycle.

Quote:
if it's not coming from the battery where does it come from?
- exactly like you say - it comes from the coil's collapsing magnetic field.

Quote:
So really to answer this we need to go back to basics. According to Inductive Laws - we're taught. Changing electric fields induce magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. That's not open to question. We know this. Then the ON cycle from the battery enables current to flow through the circuit. During that flow, which is instantaneously evident throughout the circuit - that same flow establishes a voltage across the load resistor. And, as Donovan pointed out, the rate of flow is determined by the level of voltage measured across the load resistor. The two are directly proportional and measurable in terms of know classical measurement.
- so far, so good...

Quote:
So measure that voltage - square that value and then divide it by the Ohms value of the resistor - v^2/r - to determine the actual wattage delivered by the battery during this ON period. Again. We now have the actual measure of the energy delivered by the battery.
- I would have objection to this. You entirely omit that initially the electricity (in broad term) must “perceive” the coil as a coil – until the magnetic field establishes and there is no more change of electric parameters in time. “Change in time”… Take a look at this animation again: http://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-induct.html Every coil have some resistance. The fact that yours happened to have a little bit bigger than the other typical ones – doesn’t decide that it is not a coil anymore. You maintain that it is not a coil during “on” time – but it behaves like a coil during “off” time. It is ridiculous. There is magnetic field collapse – but it didn’t appeared out of nothing like you propose. This the place that you have to revise your approach. It happened thanks to this phenomena explained nicely in graphic form in the link above. Study it, because I am telling you - your coil is not free from it! And certainly not form one half of it it is like trying to get rid of one side of coin – you cannot get rid of one side of coil law either…

Quote:
During the OFF cycle - when the switch is open - the battery is effectively disconnected from the circuit. It allows no further flow of current from the battery. NO MORE ENERGY. Whatever now happens on the circuit is not the result of more energy from the battery. And in the final analysis we are trying to evaluate the amount of energy that is coming from the battery. So - we all know there's an immediate spike - as you rightly pointed out - followed by some ringing
until the duty cycle either defaults to zero or moves into the next cycle - depending on the frequency of that duty cycle. So what actually happens to cause that spike?
My take - which is strictly in terms of Inductive Laws is this. The potential difference from the battery supply source is disconnected. The current flow from the battery is 'stopped' - instantaneously. The voltage across the load collapses. The voltage is simply a measure of the magnetic fields that were first extruded as a result of that current flow. These fields collapse to zero. The measure of that collapse is equal to the applied voltage during the previous ON cycle and also a reasonably exact measure of the energy first applied by the battery. These collapsing fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. Now the inductor becomes a supplier of energy. In effect the resistor becomes its own energy source.
- yes, but the establishing of the inductor’s field does not happen for free- like you see it. Search around that some more…

Quote:
SO. If your ammeter is showing a doubling of the current then your actual question should be - where does that 'doubled' current come from? It has NOT come from the battery
- yes and no at the same time. To evaluate this circuit’s performance it will be very helpful if you divide the operation into steps and don’t mix everything at once. First check how it operates when the flyback output is not close-looped. Take a note on energy usage. Than take a big capacitor and connect it the Bedini way – output from the diode to capacitor’s +, and capacitor’s minus connect to + of the battery. You can connect this “your way” as well- but it complicates operation and calculations because capacitor will charge directly from the battery until voltage equalize. Now run the circuit and you will notice immediately, that the circuit does indeed “know” somehow that some form of load has been hooked up to it’s other end and automatically increases the intake to equalize and compensate that additional load. Basic calculation will reveal the truth that both quantities (output gain and increase form the battery) are essentially equal So the output from the coil comes from the battery – but it happens indirectly. If you now connect this flyback to the battery again – it will “somehow sense” that there is a heavy load connected. Engineers will be able to explain it to you in terms of dynamically changing impedance, saturations, timing, phases and who knows what else… After connecting the battery the circuit will increase the input even more – but the output in your circuit is also the input in the next phase – so it makes no sense to fluffily circulate the energy that way. This is what causes many amperes displayed on your nice piece of expensive equipment. Don’t go for additional certificates for it – better go for certificate of your own logic. How both of you couldn’t find it out for so many years?! Or is it that I don’t know of something?

Quote:
It has NOT come from the battery - not in terms of classical analysis
- it came from the battery, where else could it come from – from zipons or something?!

Quote:
But how could it have come from the battery? The battery delivers a monodirectional current flow. It cannot recharge from this cycle.
- there is a delay… Battery gives energy to the coil, transistor switch this cycle off – and few fractions of the second later there is its own energy in the form of higher voltage and lower amperes coming back at it… Swing a hammer hanging on a string in front of you and you will get the message - although I am not sure if in your case it will not come back to you in the form of few zipons

Quote:
Find a second battery. Attach the negative rail ONLY to this second battery. Put the diode to the positive terminal of that second battery. And watch the battery recharge. At the same time watch the temperature over the load resistor. That wont change. And the battery will recharge.
- sure the circuit will recharge the other battery, but it will increase its input accordingly. I haven’t make the test – at this moment it is just my speculation about that, but I did make the capacitor charging, which in principle is the same.

Quote:
I keep losing posts.
- then stop doing that!
__________________
 

Last edited by henieck; 07-09-2009 at 03:21 PM.
  #381  
Old 07-09-2009, 03:46 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Veggiel - thanks for the link. It's exactly the same as I saw. I got the sweet reward wrong. The girl seems to be happy to be rewarded with a sticker. But the point is interesting. It seems that this is both our strength and our weakness.

Many thanks in any event. It's always nice to know that what's written is also read.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
__________________
 
  #382  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:14 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
And I would thank you not to tell me what I may or may not write.
- I hope it wasn't an indirect attempt of telling me what I may or may not write...
__________________
 

Last edited by henieck; 07-09-2009 at 04:16 PM.
  #383  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:26 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by henieck View Post
- I hope it wasn't an indirect attempt of telling me what I may or may not write...
__________________
 
  #384  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:35 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
My own logic does not need...
- according to my own logic, which may as well be the wrong one - because I can only judge it using my own logic - which can be false, this is the performance of your circuit in wide perspective:


It has tried to trick me to believe that it used 56 000J while it really used 34 000J to heat up the resistive element which can be heated directly to the same degree without transistor switching losses using just 18 000J


The main point is that thanks to the flyback diode there is a redundant, almost doubled flow of energy permanently present in this circuit. It is always less than double, because the coil is not capable of giving back more than it was delivered to make the magnetic field establish, and always loses some part of energy as heat in the process How much - depends on timing. With the additional, looped current you can interpret it differently. I say “it tried to trick me to believe it used 56000J” - because I measured total amount or current flowing. Depends where you place the meter you may come to the conclusion, that this additional current can be not added like I did but subtracted if you measure the reverse flow to the battery, and in this case you may come to equally false conclusion, that it used not 34+22=56 but 34-22=12. In this case I should have written, that “It has tried to trick me to believe that it used 12 000J while it really used 34 000J...” Doesn’t matter either way.

The point is that the flow goes to the battery terminal and returns to the coil – and if you measure “backward” ghost flow (but real!) to the battery it falsely represents itself as charging current. Then at the battery terminal you can think of it, that it turns to the coil again in the loop – and if you measure it in this direction like I did – it shows that almost double current is present. The point is that this ghost current doesn’t do any work, just circulates here, introduces confusion and shouldn’t be taken into account in power distribution, either way. It is like having the same constant multiplier on both sides of an equation – you can just forget about it as well, it doesn’t matter to the equation at all, and the whole story behind the equation will become clearer.

So to have the external, objective reference point I have made the discharge curve of my small battery. During the course or 10h I discharged it to 10,6V and calculated all the Joules along the way. This way, by referring to it the actual battery voltage (under the same load) I know how much energy the battery has already spent to this point. By this reference I know, that despite strange current present, in which I don’t know how much is really dissipated and how much of it is just going round and round – I can obtain how much from the battery was really extracted, even if there was any charging present. The battery makes all the real time measurements – it is just the matter to get them translated to real energy reading- that is why I made this controlled discharge first. After 180min of the circuit’s work, the battery’s voltage was 11,73V – what by reference to the freshly obtained battery’s characteristics curve means that there was ca 34000J missing from the battery’s full capacity. I have the exact measurements, this is just rounded… This is generally exactly the same value compared to the run without the diode connected at all. In this case after 180 min run the voltage was 11,71V and the Joules obtained form 15min intervals measurements and further interpolated were also very close. 37450 Joules corresponds to 11,71V in the reference curve – and value calculated during the course of the experiment shows, that it was used 38200J (as I mentioned I had slightly better voltage after every next battery charging, so it may account for this small difference). Meantime, measurements of flyback run shows that in this time frame 56800J were traveling from the battery terminal to the transistor. It is as simple and as idiotic as that… If you place the meter differently and just look in this one place loosing the big picture from the sight entirely - you will be enabled to subtract and have in your thoughts free energy for a while. Rosemary has had for many years, for example…

Finally, I have also had the temperature curve from both runs at my disposal. For the flyback operation it showed maximal temperature (reached after 90min) 33,4deg C, but for the next two hours it stabilized between 32,7 and 33,1 degC. So I have connected variable power supply and figured out after few hours of adjusting and stabilizing the temp output, that I only need 1,68W of ordinary DC power to obtain the same temperature at the same level. This gives us that at the same point of time there would be just 18150J needed to obtain the same curve. I am aware, that output from the battery is lowering with time and the power supply is not – but we could estimate this and perhaps change the final number to 18500 or 19000 to have perfect common denominator characteristics– which doesn’t change much…
__________________
 

Last edited by henieck; 07-09-2009 at 06:44 PM.
  #385  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:36 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
henieck - let's sum up where we agree. The battery only delivers energy during the ON period of the duty cycle. The energy from the spike is produced from collapsing fields in terms of Inductive Laws. And as you say,
- so far, so good...

I now recommend a v^2/r analysis to determine its energy and you object. You say that the battery knew it was delivering to a coil - and it somehow added extra energy. So. My question is where do you measure this energy? So let's change the parameters of the test. We now have a circuit that has no switch. The inductive load resistor is simply placed in series with the supply source. I'm sure you'd agree that we can now apply the v^2/r analysis to establish the wattage. You'll find that this is pretty well consistent with vi being the voltage from the supply source divided by the Ohms value of the resistor. No extra energy. But if you check you will find that there is an extruded magnetic field across that resistor with a measurable and identifiable justification or polarisation. That field is there. It is not changing the amount of current flow from the battery. It is simply an inevitable result of an electromagnetic interaction. Where there's a measurable electric field there is a corresponding and measurable magnetic field. And I think you'll agree that there is no EXTRA energy to apply that magnetic field.

So why, when the current flow is interrupted is there an assumed ability of the system to discover the existence, not of a coil, in this case on the resistor itself, but of a switch? Somehow the system knows that you are going to throw the switch and turn off the energy so it better take up more current. And if it knew this, where did it put that extra current? The voltage over the resistor on both and On and Off period of the cycle is always consistent with Ohm's Law. What I'm really asking is why do you propose that there has been an applied magnetic field at any cost greater than is determined by the measured voltages?

It is a coil during the on and off period. We are simply allowing the benefit of that coil to enable a second cycle generation of electric energy in terms of known inductive laws.

If this is 'ridiculous' as you propose, then you must surely, at its least, show me where the extra energy came to allow for that magnetic field? At all stages the voltage measurement is consistent with Ohm's Law. And this is the measured voltage. If we were using a second coil to add even more inductance - then indeed it can be argued that there has been more energy applied by the source. But we cannot claim this when we are using a standard resistor that is measuring heat dissipation in line with the known laws of physics. That 'extra' energy is only required to refute the possibility of an over unity gain. But by using a resistor to generate it's own inductance refutes any evidence or need for that 'extra' energy.

Don’t go for additional certificates for it – better go for certificate of your own logic. How both of you couldn’t find it out for so many years?! Or is it that I don’t know of something?

I have to defy not only my logic but the evidence of my senses to assume that extra energy has been delivered by the battery. The measurements do not show it. So you tell me. Is there any earthly possibility that you don't know of something? If you claim 'extra energy delivered' during the ON period and from the battery, then should you not also be able to measure that extra energy? Do you think, just maybe, that you've been persuaded to believe that there's extra energy delivered - because without it you would defeat the second law of thermodynamics? Do you think, just possibly, that our esteemed academia may have required this 'extra' storage as they did not want to redefine unity as it relates to the electromagnetic interaction?

Find a second battery. Attach the negative rail ONLY to this second battery. Put the diode to the positive terminal of that second battery. And watch the battery recharge. At the same time watch the temperature over the load resistor. That wont change. And the battery will recharge.me

sure the circuit will recharge the other battery, but it will increase its input accordingly. I haven’t make the test – at this moment it is just my speculation about that...
henieck - if there's one thing I know about you is that you are both intellectually honest and intellectually courageous. Else I would not still be trying to answer your posts. And I really also appreciate how these points anger you. May I ask you to do that test. Just look at the recharge cycle. Then speculate on that recharge cycle going back to the supply source battery. Then look at the temperature on the load which will not change. Then tell me. Where is there evidence of extra energy coming from that battery to charge the coil on the resistor so that it can 'deal with' the off period in some extraordinary and predictive manner that could only be achieved by some intellectual property in the system itself - which I simply cannot believe. Not under any circumstances.
__________________
 
  #386  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:40 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Henieck, I've just seen your post. Please advise how did you compute those Joules?
__________________
 
  #387  
Old 07-09-2009, 04:56 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Mark - I've been giggling at your little emoticons, is that the term? It's just so funny. And so eloquent.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 07-09-2009 at 05:00 PM. Reason: spelling? still not sure that's it's right
  #388  
Old 07-09-2009, 05:54 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 796
Its a way to throw in my 2 cents without adding to much gas to the fire!

You know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
__________________
 
  #389  
Old 07-09-2009, 06:25 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
input energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by henieck View Post
- that is right, but it doesn't mean that to make manifest this surge didn't cost anything energetically. It takes WORK to produce this phenomenon...
Of course it does but like any open system, you pay a small investment for a high return.

Any investment that gives interest violates thermodynamics. It is an open system that allows for environmental input to be added to our personal input so the output will be more than what we paid for. Over 1.0 COP.

As a note, just because something is an open dissipative system, that doesn't require over 1.0 cop, it just means there is an opportunity to have over 1.0 cop since there is a path for other input to be added free from the universe.

If you put in x amount and recover 90% for example, then you only need to keep putting in 10% to keep it going. You just have to make up for the losses while reaping the benefits of the full input that includes what the universe is giving back to us.

Like a merry go round. You put in x amount of energy and once it is up to speed, you put in less than x to keep it going and while you keep putting in less than x, over time, the COP keeps going up. A short duty cycle is slapping a 300 pound merry go round with your pinky once per rotation.

Anyway, I don't mind having to invest something up front to have more given back to me. Everyone's refrigerator is already doing this at COP 2.5~4.0 or so. 2.5~4 times more work in joules is being done than joules of "electricity" that left the wall.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #390  
Old 07-09-2009, 06:59 PM
henieck henieck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Like a merry go round. You put in x amount of energy and once it is up to speed, you put in less than x to keep it going and while you keep putting in less than x, over time, the COP keeps going up.
- sounds nice. I am searching for such a relatively easily replicable system. Can you advise something of that sort, or anything that has already showed proven, unusually high COP or over unity?

Quote:
Everyone's refrigerator is already doing this at COP 2.5~4.0 or so. 2.5~4 times more work in joules is being done than joules of "electricity" that left the wall.
- that is precisely right. The question is if we can tap into the "zipon" field the same way as we do to transfer heat.


Rosemary, My answer is in post 385.
__________________
 
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 02:09 AM.


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