Bedini SG - The Complete Advanced Handbook
AVAILBLE NOW: Bedini SG -
The Complete Advanced Handbook

2015 Energy Science & Technology Conference - New Date & New Location! New Schedule coming soon... Energy Conference
Energetic Forum  

Go Back   Energetic Forum > Energetic Forum Discussion > Renewable Energy > Inductive Resistor
Homepage Energetic Science Ministries Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

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

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1231 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 03:07 AM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Rosemary:

> They are indeed energised and de-energised, as you put it. But with what? Have they been energised with something that is not potential difference that is then discharged as something that is also not potential difference? If, indeed they are the same thing - then is that not potential difference - now called a state of being energised? Is this a form of energy that has entirely eluded any definition within the scientific framework perhaps?

That's a tough question for myself and .99 to answer. Honestly we are teetering now, a bit drained by that question. I would just pass the same message that I passed onto Aaron, read the last 10 pages of this thread while you hunt around on Google with a separate browser tab for background information. You still haven't seen the "classicist" side yet.

MileHigh

Last edited by MileHigh : 07-26-2009 at 03:18 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1232 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 03:33 AM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,675
Hi folks, Why is it that these conversations are starting to sound like the old good cop-bad cop scenario. And the main theme running between the conversations is a debunking of magic and things magical. Why is this, doesn't anyone here think there are things in this universe that cannot be quantified or kept track of, or retaining complete control over. The microsecond instant turn on effect Tesla discovered seems to be highlighting this I think, and I sure hope there exist scenarios in the universe that cannot be dominated and some might view these things as magical because they cant grab it and put a meter on it and charge people, lol.
peace love light
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1233 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 03:40 AM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Rosemary.

I think we can agree on the "how do we know when a coil is energized" right? It's when the coil exhibits a field of magnetic flux. If we place a permanent magnet near the end of our coil, it will either be repelled or attracted to the coil. Let's say for example that the magnet is attracted to the coil.

So that is the "when". Now the "how" and the "what". How do we energize a coil? What do we apply to the coil terminals in order to "energize" it?

Will a DC voltage source energize a coil? YES.

Will a DC current source energize a coil? YES.

Is this REALLY true? NO.

All coils have an associated DC resistance. It is unfortunate, but a fact of nature for the time being.

When you connect a resistance to a voltage source, it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.

So, in REALITY, regardless of whether we attach a voltage source or a current source to a coil to energize it, it is current that is energizing the coil.

So current is what energizes a coil. All real world coils have DC resistance, and it is because of this that a voltage source can energize a coil. If you actually had a superconducting coil and you tried energizing it with an ideal voltage source, you would not want to be any where near these devices at the time of contact closure. However, if you connect a current source to your superconducting coil, all will be as it should be. Your coil will become energized with the set current and there will be no explosion as far as I know. Incidentally, if you placed your voltage meter across the terminals of this superconducting coil that was being energized by the current source, you would measure almost zero volts. Does that make sense?

So, I suspect that I have failed once again to answer the question to your satisfaction, but that is the best I can do right now. As MileHigh said, we're running on empty here.

One last thing. Above in the example where the energized coil is near a permanent magnet and it is attracted, what will happen to the interaction between the coil and magnet at the instant we disconnect the DC current feeding our coil?

.99

Last edited by poynt99 : 07-26-2009 at 04:04 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1234 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:09 AM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
.99:

I just have to correct you on two things and get nitty-gritty technical just for the hell of it. Others do not read this, you have been forewarned! lol

> If you actually had a superconducting coil and you tried energizing it with an ideal voltage source, you would not want to be any where near these devices at the time of contact closure.

It's actually the other way around. In this case the coil is performing it's integraton of the voltage over time resulting in current flow. The current will start at zero and increase linerally over time, i.e.; a ramp function that will continue increasing on and on.

"The current through a coil is equal to 1/L x ( the integral of v(t) dt from time t=0 to time t=t )."

In this case v(t) is a constant and the solution to the integral is "trivial": i(t) = (1/(2L) x V x t), where "V" is the supply voltage. You get a ramp function for the current amps that keeps on increasing linearally as t increases.

> However, if you connect a current source to your superconducting coil, all will be as it should be.

This is the scary one.

v = L di(t)/dt

"The voltage across an inductor is the value of the inductor times first derivative of the current through the inductor with respect to time."

Look at the ideal case for fun. Start by connecting an ideal current source that is initially switched off across the terminals of your ideal inductor. When you switch the ideal current source on, it is supposed to instantly generate current. The current source wants to make di(t)/dt infinity, i.e.; to go instantly from zero amps to one amp like a "step" function. Looking back at the equation for the voltage across the inductor, it looks scary. Even if it is a more-real-world current switch-on waveform with a 5 microsecond rise time, it still looks very scary.

In this ideal hypothetical case, and this will sound familiar, the current source will generate a spike of voltage to "kick' the inductor into starting getting current flowing through it instantly. This will take an infinite amount of voltage over an infinitely short time to make this happen.

In the real world, you call these supuer-short-duration spikes "impulses" and simply forget about trying to characterize the voltage or the pulse duration and simply talk about the energy in the impulse a.k.a. spike.

So going back to the example, turning on the current source connected across the inductor would generate a brief impulse of ultra high voltage to get the coil moving. That might be dangerous to be around.

MileHigh


P.S. I have a Zen moment:

A coil integrates voltage over time resulting in current though the coil.
A capacitor integrates current over time resulting in voltage across the capacitor.

If you don't know what integration is start clicking! lol

See Joit! See all of the Yin Yang harmony and symmetry going on!?

Last edited by MileHigh : 07-26-2009 at 05:35 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1235 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:32 AM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Indeed you are correct MH

That's what happens when I try to stay on top of all the posts in one day. I think I did 27 posts today..and I know you know what I mean when I say they're darn tiring to compose

Gotta stop runnin' on them fumes

Hopefully the post did some good anyway.

cheers, and good night.

.99

Last edited by poynt99 : 07-26-2009 at 05:35 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1236 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 06:49 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,802
voltage source

Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
When you connect a resistance to a voltage source, it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.
When you connect a battery (resistance) to a voltage potential source (spike moving back to battery), it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.

You suggest doing experiments, but I don't see you doing them.

These potentials in the battery generate their own internal charging CURRENT that don't come from the spike.

Your comments reinforces what we already know and apply in unconventional ways.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1237 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 08:11 AM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
When you connect a battery (resistance) to a voltage potential source (spike moving back to battery), it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.
I would respond but I do not understand what you're saying here. I became reactionary because everything we say is disputed. I was trying to preemptively convey that I am not interested in going in to detail of this fact.

Quote:
You suggest doing experiments, but I don't see you doing them.
Every step of the way, you and Rosemary simply resist what is said rather than considering what it means. Contrary to what you believe Aaron, some things really are simple, non-mysterious and do operate as per the classical view. Not everything in electronics needs a "new age" view to explain it. Some things really are what you see, such as Ohms law, or is that one full of malarkey too If you are going to argue that a voltage source with a series resistor is not a current source, then I'd like to know what you are basing your argument on.

I suggested looking it up or trying it because I know that it is so already, from 25 years of empirical measurements and calculations. I do not need to experiment with it to prove this to myself. We have explained and explained things until out of gas and yet still it is not understood and more questions of the same sort keep rolling in. Rosemary has conceded several times that she is not well trained in electronics and needs our help to understand the classical view. This is what we are attempting to provide, but are cut off at the pass (just as you have done here) at every attempt.

Quote:
These potentials in the battery generate their own internal charging CURRENT that don't come from the spike.
OK.

Quote:
Your comments reinforces what we already know and apply in unconventional ways.
Again, I do not know what you are trying to say here.

.99
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1238 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 08:34 AM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
I think a self-imposed ban is in order. I've lost too much valuable personal time here...again

Chau and good luck.

.99
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1239 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 10:14 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,802
criticism

99,

If you read from the beginning, virtually EVERYTHING has been slandered and denounced by you know who and from you and MH - all we hear is how he "rightfully" showed what he showed. You considered him a peer and you have always quickly been willing to point out your disagreements with what we say. Yet, you find no reason to correct or keep your own peer accountable for his own claims, which is your obligation if you consider him your peer, especially if you want to claim he knows what he is doing.

First the 97% duty cycle won't make it work.
I made it work with 99%.

Then the mosfet doesn't oscillate.
But I made it oscillate.

Everything on my scope was false triggering.
My mosfet really was oscillating and you know who confirmed it
over and over in 3+ very specific word for word sentences.

Then the battery doesn't have anything going back to it.
Then it does. Then it doesn't then it does, etc...

The battery doesn't get the spike.
But if it does it is ringing.
I show how to take out the ring.
But that isn't proof of recharging.

It is enough to give someone whiplash. The fact is that
almost every significant point any of us have made has
been battled by you all. That includes you and MH and
others that can remain unnamed.

And with the voltage potential spike returning to the battery
and I got sucked into the conversation about you trying
to show there is no current moving to the battery. duh!
I'm almost ashamed I didn't even notice this.

So many distractions from what is actually happening that
it is almost difficult to focus on the facts.

Yes, there are plenty of things where typical conventional
explanations are valid. I recognize that and if it wasn't
true, my volt meter couldn't show me anything trustworthy.
I realize the validity of plenty of standard calculatons and
you know what I use to find out the inducance of coils
based on the gauge and resistance of wires with other
known variable? I go to the nice friendly online calcultors
where I can plug in all the known variable and it gives me
the answer, based on very classic conventional understanding
and it serves me well.

Contrary to what you may believe about my EE experience,
I am very resourceful, I know how to ask experts that I trust,
I know how to use the calculators and I get the exact answers
that any trained EE will get because I am educated.

You know what that means to be EDUCATED? Does that mean
I have a degree in EE? No. Does that mean I memorize all
the equations? No. Does it mean I know all the
concepts of the classical understanding and throw it out
the window? No.

Educated or education means:
WikiAnswers - What is the Latin root word for education

"'Education' is known to have several root words. It is popularly known to be derived from the Latin root 'educo' meaning to 'educe'- to draw out. It also has root words, 'educare' and 'educere'. "educare' means to 'rear or to bring up' and it refers to child rearing, whereas, 'educere' which is derived from two roots 'e' and 'ducere' means to 'draw out from within' or to 'lead forth'. "

The bottom line means resourceful to be able to go find the answers needed. That means to have the "wherewithall" to be able to do something. This all requires THINKING and not just simple memorization and regurgitation of "facts."

Here is where arguments of "credentials", experience with EE topics, etc... go flat:


"...Henry Ford was called "an ignorant pacifist." Mr. Ford objected to the statements, and brought suit against the paper for libeling him. When the suit was tried in the courts, the attorneys for the paper pleaded justification, and placed Mr. Ford, himself, on the witness stand, for the purpose of proving to the jury that he was ignorant.....Mr. Ford was plied with such questions as the following: "Who was Benedict Arnold?" and "How many soldiers did the British sent over to America to put down the Rebellion of 1776?" In answer to the last question, Mr. Ford replied, "I do not know the exact number of soldiers the British sent over, but I have heard that it was a considerably larger number that ever went back."....in reply to a particularly offensive question, he leaned over, pointing his finger at the lawyer who had asked the question and said, "If I should really want to answer the foolish question you have just asked, or any of the other questions you have been asking me, let me remind you that I have a row of electric push-buttons on my desk, and by pushing the right button, I can summon to my aid men who can answer any question I desire to ask...why should I clutter up my mind with general knowledge for the purpose of being able to answer questions, when I have men around me who can supply any knowledge I require?"

Many people in this forum do not have "credentialed" EE experience but always seem to have the knack to be able to do things that EE's can't do. Period. AND, we help each other out and there is enough collective experience to get RESULTS...RESULTS that conventional EE training says is impossible. I've seen it too many times so please don't even think of going there.

There are actually many people here with EE background and they're open enough to see that it doesn't apply across the board and that there is simply the other side of the fence that really does go against what the textbook says. With their training in conventional EE coupled with real open mindedness, they help to advance these projects and not nitpick them to death.

Don't forget. John Bedini was a Devry graduate originally and then with enough experience he saw the training was a bunch of (I can't post in this forum what the quote is).

Do NOT think for a second that because I don't have a degree in EE or anyone else that I (we) do not have the ability to find out anything I (we) want to find out as it applies when it applies or how it applies.

There are 4 areas of consciousness.

1. Conscious competance - we know what we know.
2. Unconscious competince - we don't know what we know.
3. Conscious incompetance - we know what we don't know.
4. Unconscious incompetance - we don't know what we don't know.

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ of all knowledge and information is in area 4 for 100% of all human beings.

I'm consciously aware of this fact and it is taken into consideration in all that I do. And being EDUCATED allows one to shine light into the blind spots of area #4 faster and quicker and more effectively than anyone that is not even aware of the distinction that most of what there is remains in the blind spots.

Do not think for a moment that lack of EE experience has ANY bearing whatsoever for many of us that are resourceful and have the wherewithall to use our intuition, EDUCATION and common sense and so on in any of these non-classical electrical projects.

This applies to ME and anyone else that wants to put themselves on the list of people that don't have EE experience but gets results. The classical EE training has been one of the primary causes for the lack of results in this field because quite simply, anyone that is only trained in classical circuits and belives it applies to ALL circuits simply has no qualifications to analyze non-equilibrum circuits. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Yes, classical training is good for MANY things with these circuits. For example, I showed how to dampen the ring on the spike returning to the battery by increasing resistance at the gate. That should have been something classical training should have been able to pick up on but it takes me - a non trained EE to figure that out and show it?

Classical training should have let you know who make the mosfet oscillate on demand but it takes my lack of credentials to make it work.

And so on...

So what is the point of the training in relation to these circuits if it hasn't even shown to be useful in producing better results in the circuit and has only been used to nitpick possibilities of how something can't happen or isn't happening?

I get it, I really do. But if you want to ever see over 1.0 in an electrical circuit, FORGET all your training, KNOW NOTHING, and look with fresh eyes and you'll see it. If it doesn't show you something, what do you lose? You can always snap your fingers and pop back into the conventional mindset can't you?

I'm able to snap my fingers and place my belief into any perspective I want in the blink of an eye and either make myself believe something at will or see something with absolutely no preconceived ideas regardless of what my memory has recorded.

The ONLY scientific way of looking at something is without a bias attached. You think myself and others automaticlly see some "overunity" circuit and start slobbering and have our minds open so much our brains fall out?

That isn't the case. If I have a friend come to me and tell me that he has a time machine in his garage, I'm able to, without bias or emotional reaction based on my recorded memory, go look at his garage with no judgement. I just want to see what I see as it is and not how any mental filtration process will overlay on something that I know absolutely nothing about.

You know what? By simply seeing things as they are, I actually have been able to experience quite a interesting life with many things that "skeptics" will never experience in a million years!

You can be skeptical all you want and you expectations of what this is ALREADY all about will simply give you results that correlate with your expectations.

There is no such thing as scientific skepticism. Looking at something unbiased is the only true scientific way of seeing something. Fresh each time. Not throwing everything else out the window but not using it as a filter to look at something new either!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1240 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 10:14 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,802
criticism 2

Anyway...

Ohm's Law? Use it to predict what the load sees here:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...ighcurrent.jpg
Sorry to bust your bubble, but Ohm's law also only
applies to conventional closed loop systems or
in an open loop system where you measure these pulsations
like in the Ainslie circuit. Ohm's law is incorrect or you have
to admit it doesn't always apply to unconventional
circuits. It only strictly applies in relevant circumstances.

A permanent magnet outright violates ohm's law.
You have current but there is zero voltage. That is the
simplest example of magnetism without the electrical
component...just straight magnetic current. the magnet
is a negative resistor but that is another topic.

In your definition, a charged up or energized coil violates
Ohm's law because if there is current and zero voltage,
where is this proportionate voltage or indirect proportionate
voltage?

Or maybe you can admit that if there is no voltage across
the coil with the magnetic field, you can admit that
there is no voltage in a permanent magnet either meaning
there is no electric field in a magnet and not claiming
that I understand Rosemary's magnetic field model but
your claim points in the direction that her model is based
on a strong foundation. There is no electric field in a magnet.

If I got that wrong - Rosemary, feel free to correct me.
It is all in the thread on her model.

Look at this graph:


Negative resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is what some transistor do. 2n2222, mjl21194,
and a few others that I know of. That negative
resistance range.... current goes DOWN as
voltage goes UP. That happens at certain stages.
Mjl21194 around the 1 amp range and associated
voltage, the current will drop with increase in voltage!

A complete and total violation
of ohms law.
Explain if it is a "LAW" how any
of these transistors can violate it? How does
certain carbon fibers violate ohms law? How does
a negative resistor in a battery formed by
voltage potential impulses violate ohm's law if
it is a "LAW"

How does a longitudinal impulse of pure electrostatic
potential that travels at 6 times the speed of law
with zero associated "current" violates ohms law?

And, nowhere did I say that a voltage source
with a series resistor is not a current source.
I showed you that your own claim on this, which
I agree with to a point shows that you must
also accept that voltage potential spikes (voltage
source) moving back to the battery (series
resistor - and it does have measurable resistance),
is a current source - meaning that your argument
SUPPORTS the fact that the front battery gets
charged!

Also, if you want to see a
"perfect inductor" my diagram with the high voltage
mixing with high current seems to make the impedance
disappear in a coil since the cap discharge time
decreases an incredible amount (negative resistance
in the coil).

You can decide if you want to be a constructive part
of this thread or not. You are part of the skeptical bunch
that wants to say that if this kind of circuit is put forward
that we need to be able to stand the criticism.

Well, consider this post an equal opportunity to receive
just as much criticism from the non-classical viewpoint.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1241 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 12:40 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,185
Mike - I saw your post re 'threats'. I'm scared for my personal safety for the first time in my life. I'm menaced on and off the forum. Who's doing this? Is it government? And how are they going to stop this truth from reverberating just everywhere? It's getting too widely understood. So why the menace to the few. It's making martyrs surely?[/quote]

Hi Rose,

Yes I was threatened and paid off, the latter is hard to admit to all, but I had my reasons as it was mixed up with a very nasty divorce at the time and I needed the money to start a new life in another country.

At the time myself and a partner whom is EE, we developed a crued prototype of a jet engine which was self maintaining as long as you fed it with water. We went to our bank for futher funding to bring this into some sort of production engine, we demonstrated it running to the bank and, we did not know at the time, two other persons. It was found out afterwards that the other two were cientists from a very important plc company, not to mention names. Well to cut a long story short it went to the top, HMG, and thats when the ceiling fell in and I now live in another country.

I now continue with my work but down a different avenue so as not to renage on the agreement and cause problems for my ex partner and myself, you might say keeping my head down and at the moment not rocking the boat.

Mike
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1242 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 12:57 PM
Joit Joit is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,951
About Voltage at a Resistance.
You know, a resistor like thick Wire/less Ohm - smaller Wire more Ohm speeds Voltage up, because it s a restriction.
If there would be no measurable 'Something' between induction Parts, else there would be no induction.
Looks more like, some EE's do miss to measure and consider something ?
Other Resistor slows down all the Flow, but cause Heat, what is still flow. You see, there are more kind of Resistance to consider.
And beside, you overlook the overall Flow in that case, just to say, between this Points is no resistance and therefor no Voltage, dont works.
Like, put your 2 Hands into a River, and tell us, there is no flowing because, there is no Resistance between your 2 Hands.
Or better, put your hands between 2 HV conductions and be grounded, like the Scope is, and then tell, there is no Current through.

About Caps and a Coil storage, actually i did compare it with Batterie and a Coil, but anyway, what i would point at, is that, this Ying and Yang, as you seems to see it is like the 2 Potentials, Plus and Minus.
And i got a good translator for anything, lol.

Beside a Cap do store Energy with Alloy, where we know, it do concentrate Magnetism at the inner Core.
Other Storages store it with chemical Reaktions, you see, there are more Cases, what cause Energy.
But classical Terms only say, it is all the same, because they can 'calculate' it.
Then Current as actually only a calculated Value, but no real Thing.

And as you know, Voltage cause Magnetismus, not Current.
They calculate it as Current, and give it the new Name, what is misleading in that case.
Even the case 'calculate' is such something like, do Simulations or a real Experiment, the Sim is only the half Proof.
I can tell you, why it do match, because they did know the Case, that there is a Magnetic Field, where they could start from.
But even its not researched, what a Magnetfield is or cause, and there is another Hole at the Science.
Just saying, it are aligned Parts is somehow to simple.

About the Science, there are a lot of Formulas, to calculate something, you can even find matching results there,
but seems right now its more like teaching Childrens, you think you do all right, but at last, it turns out all different, as you did want it too.
There are a lot Formulas what are right, but anywhere are a lot of 'this little Errors' what stop to come into Progress.
The Basic View of the Terms of Energy is wrong, but for the Rest, they did do build up a big Science over it.
And now, they are to lazy, to turn the Things right again, because some are scared to lost her Reputation.

It even can be that quite a lot been right, they only dont tell and teach or deny some missing Parts, what is neccessary to connect the Dots,
So still, at the Moment nothing what you can be proud of.

Skywatcher, yes, lol, some Peoples need to measure and calculate anything and need a Explanation for it, or it isnt real, and cant be proofed.

And btw, i think you can see, that you can get missleaded too,
even when you think you can all measure and calculate, but when you dont have the Right Values.
A classical Expressions from our EE's here is, Who do measures, measures Crap.
Translated from 'Wer misst, misst Mist'

Last edited by Joit : 07-26-2009 at 01:27 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1243 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 01:13 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
thanks Mike for the answer. I just cannot understand the reason for the menace. Is the object to get everyone who's close to some answers here to 'shy away'? How does anyone seriously propose that this OU knowledge is going to forever elude mainstream attention?

To judge from the crisis attack from TK one must assume that the truth is beginning to build up and develop some serious pressure. And I wonder if video demos will ever actually relieve this? We so need to engage in a discussion with our academics. MileHigh and .99 are typical of a certain 'dye hard' mind set - but there's some serious questions being asked here and there - and some of them from our most esteemed and learned.

My own efforts have been to keep 'plugging' the aspect of the 'regenerated' 'reticulated' 'recirculated' redefined second cycle current flow. Our numbers make a mockery of the concept of stored energy. And returning energy to the battery defeats this explanation in any event. Nor can that return be denied - if one simply checks out the results on battery life extension. The hope is that this can be seen as 'new age' - neo classical - who knows? Maybe a renaissance? A society no longer on it's knees to get warmth, internet access, a bit of electric lighting?

I guess the truth is that it will also constitute a radical departure from the norm both from an intellectual and a physical perspective. If there's no reliance on a centralised power grid - then will future development be so essentially tied and knotted to dense urban living requirements? That kind of starts challenging centralised governmental controls? It also calls for a spread of good fortune that will reduce the have and have not ratios pretty substantially. Maybe a form of chaos? No idea. But. In my view the truth of this surfeit of energy is going to leak out - one way or another. And I, personally, have confidence in the aspirations of our civilization to believe that we'll move in the general direction that evolution needs. At the moment we're definitely out of synch. I think we all know that from a deep place inside us all.

Interesting to see where this will lead.

Last edited by witsend : 07-26-2009 at 01:17 PM. Reason: general
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1244 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 01:24 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hi Joit. Just seen your post. I agree but am not sure that the 'omissions' in teaching are deliberate. It's just - that strange truth - academics will settle for explanations from other academics. Not from anyone else. We need to point these things out to our academics and hope that someone will come up with a paper that will describe a test that defeats OU - by using a switching circuit - applied to an inductive resistor in series with a battery supply source. That paper will then be accepted by IEEE's or IET and published in an acceptable journal. Then magic of magic - they can take the credit for the discovery and, with luck - we can FINALLY get some permission to study this as central instead of fringe science.

I don't think academia will be able to avoid a little bit of egg on the face - but I also know that there's a pool of intellectual honesty there that we can all rely on. It's just a question of trying to widen the size of that pool. EDIT like across the pond and then across the Pacific - then everywhere. Begins to sound like Noah's flood.

Last edited by witsend : 07-26-2009 at 01:40 PM. Reason: general
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1245 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 01:41 PM
Joit Joit is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,951
Hi witsend, i think, the Omissions are partially done by a few Peoples,
you know, all the Books are writen censored and controlled by a few Peoples,
for what Reason ever, if it are Things, what are not clear for now, or they censor Things, what you not should know,
and for the Rest,
well, there is a lot of Stuff to learn about it, i dont think anyone can proof anything Point by Point.
I even Think, you cant, at the same Moment, when you are learning them.
And if, your Teacher will deny it greatly, that he can be wrong, because its all established, and they cant be faulty.
Its the general missleading, what is just accepted from all.
An easy simple Truth even, and we mostly get teached, to dont ask uneasy Truths.
Just funny, when you show your Teacher some unexpected Things like Magnets what attract non magentic things, or the Permanent Magnet Holder from Ed Leedscalin.

I am even not complete sure, if that is MH' s and Poynts 'Fight' for 'her' Truth or serious torpedo our Progress here( to open a Gate for someone else?),
or just her View of Things out from her Window.

Last edited by Joit : 07-26-2009 at 01:56 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1246 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 01:58 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Joit - are you saying the MH and .99 are just more of the same like TK? I don't think so. If they were then they'd be better qualified. When we get the basic evidence refuted publicly - by qualified physicists - then only could we be proved wrong. Debunkers no longer cut it. And if qualified physicists write on this to disprove it - then it calls for question from other physicists to prove it. That's how they play their chess games. Either way it'll get the question back out there. And the question is as Aaron's pointed to. Is our natural system a closed system? Or not?

I do think my magnetic field model is perhaps close to the truth. But that doesn't help anyone at all because it's as clear as midnight to just about everyone.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1247 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 02:21 PM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Aaron:

You said:

>
That is what some transistor do. 2n2222, mjl21194,
and a few others that I know of. That negative
resistance range.... current goes DOWN as
voltage goes UP. That happens at certain stages.
Mjl21194 around the 1 amp range and associated
voltage, the current will drop with increase in voltage!

A complete and total violation
of ohms law. Explain if it is a "LAW" how any
of these transistors can violate it? How does
certain carbon fibers violate ohms law? How does
a negative resistor in a battery formed by
voltage potential impulses violate ohm's law if
it is a "LAW"
>

Here is an example of you clearly demonstrating a variation on the theme of unconscious incompetance. There is no violation of ohm's law in the example you cited, none at all. Your mistaken belief that "a law has been broken" is being used by you to challenge classical electrical theory and advance your proposition that there are many "unconventional" circuits and that these types of circuits need to be seen with a new and open perspective.

You see these leaps of fath and incorrect connecting of the dots all the time around here.

Going back to the circuit, you and Rosemary appear to want to jump on any shred of evidence that there is a spike of current going back and charging the source battery and then argue that there is real battery recharging going on while the circuit operates. This flies in the face of the evidence presented so far with various scope traces. Nowhere have we seen any convincing evidence of battery recharging. This is analogous to the negative resistance example above where you take that information and massage it into an example of a violation of ohm's law when nothing could be further from the truth. You are looking at the world with rose-coloured glasses and simply seeing what you want to see and incorrectly leveraging false information to advance your proposition.

Let me give you one more example:

>
Yes, classical training is good for MANY things with these circuits. For example, I showed how to dampen the ring on the spike returning to the battery by increasing resistance at the gate. That should have been something classical training should have been able to pick up on but it takes me - a non trained EE to figure that out and show it?

Classical training should have let you know who make the mosfet oscillate on demand but it takes my lack of credentials to make it work.
>

Here are two CLEAR examples of "you don't know what you don't know." In your fist paragraph above you have no knowledge of whether classical training "should have been able to pick up on it or not" but you are making a totally erroneous assumption that that's the case. Why are you even doing that, it makes no sense.

The same thing applies for the MOSFET oscillation. You were working with the circuit and tried a few things and stumbled onto the oscillation. You didn't design your setup to do this, you did not purposefully arrive at this as a goal in your build up of the circuit, you merely stumbled upon it. You can't claim any kind of victory here or take any kind of credit, nor can you explain the mechanism for the oscillations. You are a million miles away from the type of analysis that could be done on this phenomenon by a hard-core academic EE. To use modern lexicon, there has been gigabytes and gigabytes and gigabytes of research done investigating this kind of thing. There have proably been thousands and thousands of academic papers written on this topic and yet you feel that "you did what a regular EE could not do" because he or she would be limited in their perspective because of their classical training. Meanwhile I am telling you there has probably been so much hard-core academic research and real world research done into this phenomenon that it would take several lifetimes to cover all of the material.

Going back to the battery charging issue and your first scope shot with all of the ringing at the end of the cycle. This has been suggeted as evidence that the battery is recharging. I put forward the proposition that it is most likely ringing in the wire, and by that I mean the wire alone, and no other part of the circuit. I mentioned again that the MOSFET is clearly switched off when the ringing happens and thus the battery can't be charged by this ringing. Am I correct in my hypothesis? I don't know for certain but I have a hunch that I am. The point is to continue investigating and try and get a full understanding of what is going on. What's going on with you and Rosemary is that every time you see some preliminary evidence of a spike or ringing then you automatically force that into your pre-conceived conceptual view of the circuit and conclude that this must be battery charging. That's wrong. Again, look at what happened when you saw some spikes when you ran the test without the fly-back diode. Both you and Rosemary automatically assumed that they were spikes that were charging the battery. I walked everyone through the actual analysis and proved very convincingly that these spikes do NOT charge the battery, in fact the battery discharges a bit when this happens, and the spikes could damage the MOSFET.

So all of that has to be weighed in when you look at the big picture. Even the notion that this is an "unconventonal" circuit is really a statement that is rooted more in your ideology than fact. Think of it, take a step back for a second now. You have a circuit that consists of a switch, a resistor, a coil, and a diode. Four components that are completely conventional. What could possibly make this circuit unconventional? You may cite the evidence presented in Rosemary's paper. For a certain proportion of the readers here all of the data in the paper is suspect. The hypothesis that experimental procedural error got the duty cycles mixed up is still on the table. I think that we are all in agreement that a new rounds of testing should be done to verify or refute the claim.

You can accuse .99 and myself of being acrgumetative and that's fine. By the same token you and Rosemary have much less understanding of how circuits work, and are prone to try to jam square pegs into round holes if doing that fits into your expectations for the circuit. You have to back off and be conservative, run more tests to see if you can get more data to back up your theory, etc.

Let me give you one example of this, going back to your first scope shot again. Supposing you disconnect the battery and the MOSFET, and just run current through the wire and keep your scope probe across the shunt resistor. Simple setup: Battery positive -> current limiting resistor -> mechanical switch -> start of wire -> shunt resistor -> end of wire -> ground. Flip the switch on and off and see if you see ringing in the wire because it is acting as an LC resonator.

If you see ringing in the wire, and it looks nearly identical to what you see in your first scope shot, then that pretty much confirms my theory that it was simply ringing in the wire, which CANNOT charge the battery. Plus you CANNOT forget that the MOSFET is clearly OFF when you see the ringing in your scope shot. This makes it highly doubtful, if not impossible, for that ringing to charge the battery. Then there is ANOTHER fact as pointed out by .99: The ringing, if it showed current going into the battery, also shows current leaving the battery, for a net gain of zero.

So that is all stuff for your comtemplation. We need real measurements and then we will see what happens.

MileHigh

Last edited by MileHigh : 07-26-2009 at 02:54 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1248 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 02:25 PM
Joit Joit is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,951
witsend, i dont say anything right now, lol.
Maybe they are even some old Hooks, like a good Friend of me, what has a hard time, to accept an other View of Things, as he allready has.

But i ve seen a lot of Attempts here, to damp down other Attempts to proove something, what do end up in missleading.
And that all with a Cape of established Science how it all do work ? Well, i dont know.

Even when i read Things like that
Post #1058 Repeat: No energy is going back to the source battery.

That sounds more like mass Hypnosis.

At all, we all do use most of the general accepted Terms of EE for now, because there is nothing else, how to talk about it, its not like, we are only using it, because its so handy, but its kind of a Base right now.

And btw, i am quit not sure about the fact, when the Ringing apears at a higher Potential, as the Source/charge is,
if it is not a Case of higher DC against the Source, what is only a higher and lower Load.
Like Source = 12V, the ringing apears at 40V and gives a Load to the Source.
Sure, at the Scope it appears as AC ringing.

Last edited by Joit : 07-26-2009 at 02:40 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1249 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 02:44 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
following quotes from MileHigh. I can't get past this para so if we can clear this up I'll be able to read on.

Going back to the circuit, you and Rosemary appear to want to jump on any shred of evidence that there is a spike of current going back and charging the source battery and then argue that there is real battery recharging going on while the circuit operates.
Not at all. We are not arguing. We are showing the evidence. Science is progressed on experimental evidence.


This flies in the face of the evidence presented so far with various scope traces.
Also not entirely true. It flies in the face of your explanation of the evidence. That's a different thing altogether.

Nowhere have we seen any convincing evidence of battery recharging.
Extraordinary. There's been plenty of evidence. It has been systematically dismissed by you, TK and sundry. But the evidence is indeed there. We're looking for impartiality here MileHigh. If you need to make a statement like this please support it with actual reference. EDIT TK dismissed the evidence based on the fact that his battery was new? Can't win if evidence is dismissed.

This is analogous to the negative resistance example above where you take that information and massage it into an example of a violation of ohm's law when nothing could be further from the truth.
Can we please ask you to simply explain how it is possible that potential difference on the resistor cannot regenerate current flow when those magnetic fields collapse? We're still waiting for an explanation.

You are looking at the workd with rose-coloured glasses and simply seeing what you want to see and incorrectly leveraging false information to advance your proposition.
With respect MileHigh. Go and look in a mirror.

Last edited by witsend : 07-26-2009 at 02:51 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1250 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 03:39 PM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Joit:

In post #1058 I made the effort to give everyone a clear step-by-step explanation of what that spike in this specific setup was doing and how it would affect the battery. Real analysis, following a logical process, looking at voltages and currents and timings to arrive at a conclusion based on the evidence.

Yet you are quick to dismiss that effort as "mass Hypnosis?" From your postings I would assume that you might not understand my analysis beause it was fairly technical. That does not give you the ability to reach a conclusion and dismiss this analysis as "mass Hypnosis." This is a case where you should be approaching your argument knowing that for a lot of concepts related to electronics circuits "you know what you don't know."

Rosemary:

> Not at all. We are not arguing. We are showing the evidence. Science is progressed on experimental evidence.

It's evidence coupled with a knowledge base that you can draw on to understand the evidence presented to you. Evidence without the means to understand and interpet it is the problem. You have clearly stated that you have very little understanding of electronic circuits and are going up a learning curve. For every scope trace you look at you are supposed to be able to follow though on a path of deductive reasoning to arrive at a proper conclusion. You have to be able to demonstrate a mastery of the subject matter at hand to arrive at a proper understanding of the experimental evicence.

So far every "charging spike" on the shunt resistor we have seen has been miniscule compared to the the output waveform from the battery thats powering the load. The logical intrepretation of this evidence is the net result over the full curent waveform is that the battery is discharging and any recharging spikes are insignificant. By the same token if your scope shot shows you a voltage spike, you cannot make any conclusions about any possible charging of the battery unless you know what the current is doing at the same time as the voltage spike. When you see a voltage spike alone, either you look for evidence of current flow during the spike and/or use your understanding of how analog circuits actually work to arrive at a conclusion. You don't have the skills or knowledge about analog circuits to draw conclusions, and need to solicit the opinions from both camps on this forum, as well as draw on other sources.

MileHigh

Last edited by MileHigh : 07-26-2009 at 03:45 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1251 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 03:52 PM
Joit Joit is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
Joit:

Yet you are quick to dismiss that effort as "mass Hypnosis?"
MileHigh
That Effort and tell, What to do are quite some different Things,

I tend for solid Proofs too, not just for some hypothetical Explanations.
but i do tent for too, Not to try to People to suggest, what they should Repeat or Not Repeat, like you tell it some Retards.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1252 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 04:35 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
MileHigh,

You have made a valiant effort to offer the classicist "perspective" on electrical circuits and their operation, and I think I have done the same.

Clearly the folks here are resistant to any notion that goes against their beliefs, and folks will stand by their beliefs, no matter how absurd if they are passionate enough about them.

I think it's time to back away and let the dead horse lay. Don't get drawn so deeply into the fray that it cuts time off your lifespan, evidently here, it is not worth it. Clearly no one's listening, and no one's getting it.



Save yourself, that's my recommendation. Ban yourself

Peace my friend,
.99
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1253 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 04:57 PM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Rosemary:

> Can we please ask you to simply explain how it is possible that potential difference on the resistor cannot regenerate current flow when those magnetic fields collapse? We're still waiting for an explanation.

I am assuming that you are referring to your standard circuit after the MOSFET switch opens. What happens to the energy that is stored in the coil part of the coil-resostor? Is that correct?

By "potential difference on the resistor" I am assuming that you mean the fact that the coil part is storing energy because current is flowing through it as per the standard fromula E = 1/2 x L x i-squared.

By "magnetic fields collapsing" I am assuming that you are referring to when inductor is de-energizing and dumping it's stored energy.

If that's the question then it has been answered already here and there in the thread.

The other day you posted about the path you think the current is taking when the inductor de-energizes to recharge the battery, and you asked .99 to comment. I don't recall if he did, but I noticed that it did not make sense. Your notion that in the standard circuit as per your paper that the coil de-energizes through the battery is not true. More shunt resistor waveforms will show this. I think that Aaron said that he was going to do a new and cleaner build, so he should keep investigating.

In fact, there is an easy way to confirm that the coil is de-energizing through the diode. If you run the standard circuit and put a 5, then 10, then 20 ohm resistor in series with the diode, then you should see progressively higher voltages across the diode + resistor combo as you increase the value of the resistor. At the same time you shoud see no changes across the shunt resistor waveform. If you observe this, it is telling you that the coil is de-energizing through the diode. If you don't know why you should see progressively higher voltages then I suggest that you go back and read through earlier posts on this thread. This is an example of developing a new experimental procedure to support your hypothesis. At this point in time, you and Aaron don't have the electronics knowlegde to invent new test procedures like this.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you about what you question is all about.

MileHigh

Last edited by MileHigh : 07-26-2009 at 05:08 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1254 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:05 PM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
.99:

It does makes sense to slow down a lot. I hope replicators start generating some data.

Rosemary I am very cool about this whole thread don't need to repeat myself anynore and don't have ulterior motives. I can't contribute much more, and of course I sense the fact that we are all pooped in one way or another.

I just want you and all interested parties to get at the real data. The real world saying the data will be unremarkable, because there is nothing remarkable about the circuit. Please don't take offense, but you are dealing with something extremely simple here. Occam's Razor will most likely determine what the results of this expriment will be.

MileHigh
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1255 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:15 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
MileHigh - here's the thing. Those magnetic fields that are established across the resistor - when the switch is open they are simply potential difference. Is this not so? Or is this the point where my argument fails in terms of classical physics?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1256 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:29 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
I take it you've banned yourself Poynt99? Let me then thank you very much for your contributions here. Truly appreciated.

Last edited by witsend : 07-26-2009 at 06:08 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1257 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:38 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quotes from MH
I am assuming that you are referring to your standard circuit after the MOSFET switch opens. What happens to the energy that is stored in the coil part of the coil-resostor? Is that correct?
Yes.

By "potential difference on the resistor" I am assuming that you mean the fact that the coil part is storing energy because current is flowing through it as per the standard fromula E = 1/2 x L x i-squared.
No. I mean that the path for the flow of energy from the battery is interrupted courtesy the switch. Now. Is there PD - at that moment - on the resistor? If so, is there a path for this energy to flow?

By "magnetic fields collapsing" I am assuming that you are referring to when inductor is de-energizing and dumping it's stored energy.
Indeed. If we're going to be Occam's razorish. Here's the thing. Collapsing magnetic fields are changing fields. They are changing from plus something to zero. Are you saying that - notwithstanding this 'change' they are not able to regenerate another cycle of induced electromagnetic energy?

If that's the question then it has been answered already here and there in the thread.
It hasn't been answered. I am referring to Inductive Laws. As I understand it - changing electric fields induce magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. If the collapsing fields are also changing fields why would they not induce an electric field? And why would that electric field not be equal to the energy stored in those magnetic fields in the first instance.

Just that. Just PLEASE argue that point. No reference to any previous explanations. Just this. Why is it that classicists cannot accept that the collapse of the fields also represents a change of the fields.

Lets argue this step by step. Don't add anything else. Don't look anywhere else. Just this one moment in the duty cycle when the battery is disconnected.

Last edited by witsend : 07-26-2009 at 05:40 PM. Reason: addition
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1258 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:41 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
I take it you've banned yourself Poynt99? Let me then thank you very much for your contributions here. Truly appreciated.
Yes Rosemary, I've contributed all I can here.

If you have any more questions, I'm sure MH can answer them, although I agree with him that most if not all already have been. I would suggest you compile a document with all mine and MileHigh's posts and study that.

I'm moving on to a new project helping Luc and some others with a new circuit and method of driving their coils for their resonance experiments. At least I know that will be a fruitful endeavor for me, and worth my time and effort.

I would suggest that MileHigh move on as well.

Good luck with your tests. I'll be watching quietly on the sidelines for some real results and evidence.

.99
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1259 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 05:54 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Poynt - for now I take it you're happy with the measurement protocols outlined in the paper?

If, therefore, the results are substantially consistent on a replicated experiment - then we can conclude there is a definite breach of unity?

I would be sorry to do a test replication to discover that you were, in any event, reserving judgement.

Without an express denial of this therefore, I will take it as a confirmation. Thanks for this.

Last edited by witsend : 07-26-2009 at 06:13 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1260 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2009, 06:19 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
I am ok with your test protocol. My only contentions were as I noted before:

1) Move the shunt to the battery/voltage source +'ve terminal
2) Ensure that the data and its analysis is sound

If MH is willing, he can critique your test protocol for for any deficiencies.

.99

PS. My judgment means nothing. If performed properly, the test and the resulting data and analysis will speak for itself.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
2007-2014 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved