Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

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

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #2431  
Old 09-03-2009, 12:28 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
If you can't actually replicate then I'm happy to take the knowledge - on the chin. I really much prefer to deal with the situation head on - so to speak.
To whom else does this apply, and what's the basis for which you consider someone's replication a worthy replication?

.99
__________________
 

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

  #2432  
Old 09-03-2009, 01:50 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
summation

Poynt - The lack of proof from a replicated circuit so far has been done by TK who managed it - as I mentioned - through the artifice of innuendo rather than scientific analysis. And latterly by Harvey who has bent over backwards to find some explanation for the phenomenon albeit that he could not find the evidence of a gain on his apparatus. Aaron has had the same difficulties as Harvey in trying to find the heat on the load at some wattage that is consistent with the claim in the published article. And others such as QU, ELW, Luc and even Joit have achieved anomolous evidence without managing the detailed power analysis required for proof or otherwise and all apparently using variations of the circuit that we also used prior to that final published test.

My own take is this. I cannot fully understand Harvey's explanation for our own result. I'm still applying myself here. But through all these tests - the single outstanding feature is that COP >17 is not easily realised and I have now begun to doubt the validity of my claim in the first instance. My assumption was always that it would be as clear as daylight and easily evidenced. If there was some unique property in our apparatus that was omitted from the published paper - then the thesis may quite simply wrong. It was based on the proposal that energy from an inductor is the result of regenerated rather than recycled energy.

What is still suggested is this. Aaron has found COP at a greater than 1 - but at a 'smidgen' as you've used the term. This was simply through running the load as well as the switch off the same supply and resulting in a greater heat dissipation than measured from the control. Also, the battery lasted longer. He is waiting for Fuzzy's resistor before he concludes anything here. QU and ELW have found gains on variations of the published circuit - using an inductor in parallel to the load. And even TK showed that the running of a motor in parallel to the load indicated some anomalous results. But TK's evidence is also presented with the intention to deny it soon thereafter so it may be inappropriate to reference his result. And quite frankly - if we're now talking values lower than COP > something significant - is it worth persuing? I suppose that would be up to each contributor to determine.

My own summation is this. I think that it's significant that the published circuit can apparently be run at zero loss. That in itself is better than mainstream allows through losses on the circuitry and should, at its least, raise questions. I'm satisfied that no such switching circuit, regardless of its application - is allowed at zero loss or 100% efficiency. This possibly suggests that where inductive loads are used then the application of a switch and some return path for the energies could result in enhanced efficiencies. That may be a good thing but I'm not sure of its commercial value.

It would still need fuller exploration to find whether loads in parallel to inductive components or even motors would also result in some efficiency if not a gain - but to test this would depend on the willingness of contributors. I suspect that Aaron may be prepared to explore this option.

But the really extraordinary result is in that waveform that he found over the last experiment that he posted on this thread. The downside here - of course - is the low level of wattage and the new phenomenon of reduced heat that you seem to find trivial. Frankly I have no idea if this is in anyway significant. But I certainly do not agree with you that it is the result of noise. Noise is not usually associated with plus/minus 2 volts across a 10 Ohm resistor. But - quite frankly - I would prefer to find out what Harvey thinks about this too. I need some critical analysis here without a bias.

EDIT - I would add that there is still the outside possibility that the resistor has some properties that are critical to this result. So we badly need your contribution here Fuzzy. It will either prove or put paid to the extreme efficiencies that we claimed.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 09-03-2009 at 02:31 PM. Reason: spelling error and another point
  #2433  
Old 09-03-2009, 02:44 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
we are all working to the same goal

After reading your last post Rosmary, I just want to add that OU has been achieved in this forum, Dr. Stiffler and his sec is achieving this, and it is in a similar form to yours, and it HAS BEEN REPLICATED BY MANY. For those that do not believe then they should read his thread, it is very enlightning, and they should think about the similarities of self oscillating transistors or semi conductors as I have found.

Mike
__________________
 
  #2434  
Old 09-03-2009, 02:52 PM
quantumuppercut quantumuppercut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
That is interesting - so you did build it and measured the input energy and output energy? You should video that information and put a link to the video in your thread - many people would enjoy experimenting with that.

Cheers,

I didn't measure the energy. I measured the voltage differential accross the LEDs and use that as a reference for calculating the current going through all LEDs. There are too much excitement on here already. My goal is not convincing anyone but working on a model that suitable for high school level. There are too many evidents that one can put half of them together and find the answer.

I've warned Rose on many occasions that this situation would happened. I forsee that people will not be happy with zipons even if the circuit is valid. I'm worried of her sensitivity cause her unhappy. I guess I couldn't do anything about it.

Rose, you must allow science to have their moment alone. That's the only way this will progress.
__________________
 
  #2435  
Old 09-03-2009, 03:18 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Poynt - But I certainly do not agree with you that it is the result of noise. Noise is not usually associated with plus/minus 2 volts across a 10 Ohm resistor.
The noise I am referring to is not in regards to the voltage across the load. The load shunt is used to determine net mean current in the load and in the battery. The net mean voltage across the load shunt was a mere -5.4mV, which in terms of a noise floor comparison and analysis of the scope samples, equates to a magnitude just slightly above the baseline noise present in the samples. What this means is the claimed effect is not supported by solid evidence.

I'd still like to know the answers to these two questions:
Quote:
To whom else does this apply, and what's the basis for which you consider someone's replication a worthy replication?
There is no need to consider replicating if the same courtesy is not afforded to all, and also it's critical to know what you deem as a valid replication. Also, are you now retracting the COP=17 claim? Please clarify.

.99
__________________
 
  #2436  
Old 09-03-2009, 03:34 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
The noise I am referring to is not in regards to the voltage across the load. The load shunt is used to determine net mean current in the load and in the battery. The net mean voltage across the load shunt was a mere -5.4mV, which in terms of a noise floor comparison and analysis of the scope samples, equates to a magnitude just slightly above the baseline noise present in the samples. What this means is the claimed effect is not supported by solid evidence.

I'd still like to know the answers to these two questions:


There is no need to consider replicating if the same courtesy is not afforded to all, and also it's critical to know what you deem as a valid replication. Also, are you now retracting the COP=17 claim? Please clarify.

.99
If there is a NET ZERO CURRENT FLOW from the delivery of a battery supply source - then WHAT MEASUREMENT WOULD PROVE THIS? Zero? Greater zero? Less zero? Where are your brains? How can a zero net loss be proven if any measurement at zero is considered NOISE? USE YOUR BRAINS.

AND NO - I am not retracting my claim until we've tested with identical resistors or resistors with thicker wires. If no gain is measured then I will retract - not my claim but the extent of my claim depending on the evidence to hand. What I am acknowledging for the first time and publicly is that I may very well be wrong.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 09-03-2009 at 04:00 PM. Reason: Deleted some irrelevant observations
  #2437  
Old 09-03-2009, 03:46 PM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987
Wrong again.

As stated on the other forum, the vertical accuracy of the scope while at that observed setting of "20mV per div." (which is "160 mV full scale"); would be....

8 screen divisions x ".020 volts per div" (for the total full scale value) = 0.160V .

.160 x .02 (2% vertical accuracy; the published spec) = .0032 ....

" +/- 3.2 mV " .... plus or minus 3.2 millivolts of vertical (voltage) error.

...Which could be vastly improved simply by increasing the sensitivity setting by a notch.. Without danger of any significant difference in reading

So that is another dead horse in your barn to stop flogging before the S.P.C.A. comes after you.

I guess your "Suzy Status Quo" modeling software didn't tell you that.
__________________
 
  #2438  
Old 09-03-2009, 03:50 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Poynt - And by the way - I would settle for the evidence from any experimental construct that is designed to genuinely test the experiment. And from you - I'd be happy with the simple simulated experiment will full replication of the actual experimental apparatus. I cannot understand why you have never done this and yet continually assure us of the outcome. Such a test would at least disclose the extent of the predicted losses that we can use as a gauge.

Sorry for my rude comments.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 09-03-2009 at 04:09 PM.
  #2439  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:04 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
and Quantumuppercut and Mike - thanks for your empathy. I must admit I've had better days. But it's always a good thing to deal with realities even if it's not easy. It's just that all the evidence also needs to be correctly assessed and I don't trust my skills here.
__________________
 
  #2440  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:21 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
If there is a NET ZERO CURRENT FLOW from the delivery of a battery supply source - then WHAT MEASUREMENT WOULD PROVE THIS? Zero? Greater zero? Less zero? Where are your brains? How can a zero net loss be proven if any measurement at zero is considered NOISE? USE YOUR BRAINS.
One point I have been trying to get across but is not being understood, is that there are two conditions that will result in a display of "0.000" using the DC vlotage meter as I suggested. One condition is when the positive and negative voltages exactly equal and they average out to 0.000. The second condition that can result in a "0.000" display on the voltage meter is when either the voltage truly is "0" volts, i.e no input whatsoever, OR when the meter's sensitivity is not high enough to register a reading.

The assumption being made here is that the first case is true, whereby there is a readable voltage present and that the positive and negative voltage is averaging to zero.

I am advising that we do not know for certain that this is the case. The second case has just as much chance of being true at this moment. I, and others have suggested that the second case is more likely what is occurring, whereby the meter's sensitivity is not high enough to register even a solid least significant digit on the display.

.99

PS. Thank you for the insults. I hope they will also be reported to Aaron, or are you with impunity here?
__________________
 
  #2441  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:26 PM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987
Good God. Now he's back to the meters again.

What ever they are paying you for this, it isn't enough
__________________
 
  #2442  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:30 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Good God. Now he's back to the meters again.

What ever they are paying you for this, it isn't enough
I presumed that Rosemary's recent posts are referring to the voltage meter readings when she is mentioning "net zero current flow" etc. If that is not the case then I apologize. If it is the case, then you need do the same.

.99
__________________
 
  #2443  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:39 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Poynt I apologised for my rudeness and amended the post prior to your own post. Check out the times. Also, I very much doubt that Aaron will ban me from the forum - but nor do I use this as license to indulge my 'freedoms' here. I would add that it's not in character. And again. Sorry.

Regarding your acknowledgement - finally. Indeed. There are two options here. The voltmeter may be faulty. It's entirely unlikely that the Tektronix is.

And what about your simulated program. Can you do this for us? It would be easier than trying to replicate the exact components of the circuit apparatus.
__________________
 
  #2444  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:43 PM
boguslaw's Avatar
boguslaw boguslaw is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,494
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
After reading your last post Rosmary, I just want to add that OU has been achieved in this forum, Dr. Stiffler and his sec is achieving this, and it is in a similar form to yours, and it HAS BEEN REPLICATED BY MANY. For those that do not believe then they should read his thread, it is very enlightning, and they should think about the similarities of self oscillating transistors or semi conductors as I have found.

Mike
Yes,I wanted to gently note this but anyway this thread is dedicated to replication of original circuit not to make a new one.I bet similar OU may be achieved using modified Joule thief circuit.The problem with Rosemary circuit I see (no offence please) is the continuous need to find and hold the resonance frequency.
@witsend
Could we at least add a sensing coil around heating coil back to 555 to trigger resonance ?
__________________
 
  #2445  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:46 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by boguslaw View Post
Yes,I wanted to gently note this but anyway this thread is dedicated to replication of original circuit not to make a new one.I bet similar OU may be achieved using modified Joule thief circuit.The problem with Rosemary circuit I see (no offence please) is the continuous need to find and hold the resonance frequency.
@witsend
Could we at least add a sensing coil around heating coil back to 555 to trigger resonance ?
Oh Bogus. At last I managed a laugh. You may try anything in the world you wish. I'd welcome it.
__________________
 
  #2446  
Old 09-03-2009, 05:43 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Regarding your acknowledgement - finally. Indeed. There are two options here. The voltmeter may be faulty. It's entirely unlikely that the Tektronix is.
Not sure of what I was acknowledging. This was mainly informational for your benefit as you were not understanding the point I was trying to make.

I did not say the voltmeter was faulty, and that is not what I meant. The terms "Faulty" and "beyond its sensitivity" are worlds apart in meaning. Don't carelessly interchange the two.

Quote:
And what about your simulated program. Can you do this for us? It would be easier than trying to replicate the exact components of the circuit apparatus.


I did this ages ago here and I believe I posted many scope shots and schematics. Where were you?

.99
__________________
 
  #2447  
Old 09-03-2009, 06:19 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 801
99

I went back about 20 pages looking for your scope shots and schematics and couldn't find them. Do you know what page they're on?
__________________
 

Last edited by Mark; 09-03-2009 at 06:59 PM.
  #2448  
Old 09-03-2009, 06:50 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys I'm actually exhausted. Not a happy day. I'll log in later. Poynt, you must do whatever you want here. I have no recollection of a detailed simulated test on Aaron's circuit - or for that matter on the published.

And with reference to 'faulty meter' read uncalibrated, insensitive, whatever you want. I'm simply stating that it may not be equal to the required voltage measurement. Let me remind you - it was required by you. And - let me stress, the Tektronix is well able to deal with this measurement. It entirely eludes me why you should have wanted an alternative instrument unless you were looking for inferior data. I also do not understand why Aaron ever obliged you here. The real joke is that having done the measurement which you called for - you then discount it on the basis of the the instrument not giving a correct value. So, so strange. You really do treat us like idiots. No wonder everyone loses patience with you.
__________________
 
  #2449  
Old 09-03-2009, 06:54 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
Hi witsend,
speaking from different Resistors, what did the scopeshots look like what you got by your Tests,
they been simialer to the one we have here?
Thanks.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.

Last edited by Joit; 09-03-2009 at 06:56 PM. Reason: adding Rofl to Post #2448
  #2450  
Old 09-03-2009, 06:57 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Hi everyone,

I received my Nickel Chromium "Ni Cr A" 80% nickel, 20% chromium AWG 20 [.032 dia] ( .6348 ohms ft ) wire today to start making the 8.64 micro Henries 10 ohm wire wound "Load" resistor made on 32 mm OD. "Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex ). I'm making a winding machine because there is just not this resistor but several coils I need to make for my "Vacuum Tube Tesla Coil" although the resistor has a little over 15 feet of wire hand winding may be a option but there are some skeptics that may object for a wide rage of unknown reasons and I want to avoid this at all costs. This could very well make the wider differences that is ultimately needed in the true construction of this "Replication" and results.

I have also went back to the NE555N timer oscillator because of the repeditive wave forms appear not to be there using the other NE555xx timers, and I think Harvey may have came to the same conclusion looking at his postings.

I am also going to need a small (smaller the better maybe) "Liquid" Lead Acid ( wet cell ) battery, because when adjusting the potentiometer's for the 555 power and the Gate using the Fluke 87 DMM very strange up and down voltage readings occur to be reversing back and forth sometimes slowly, this is using a small "Gel" Lead Acid battery type "Long" WP3-12 12 Volt 3 Ah.

I'm also wondering about possible of "Gel" battery memories on used or previously charged batteries through the positive repeatedly, if this is causing difficulty especially using gel type batteries. The "Liquid" new or used batteries may have a easer time moving currents in the opposite direction through the negative and/or positive quickly or more efficient ...... don't know, but I recall "Liquid" batteries never get charge/discharge memory ??

The consensus for a approve method to measure the current on the RA circuits from members here at Energetic and at Over Unity will be needed to resolve the issue only if small amounts can be produced unless there are larger differences through replications using other "Load" 10 ohm resistors with mH impedance values or other substituted components. This battle is to the others, the replicators will all be waiting here soon for your answers, as for the replicators we should not to be bias one way or the other. Our ( replicators ) bottom line is, the obtained readings we may achieve for any verification, there just needs to be a agreed method of measurement .......

Good luck to all, !!

Glen
__________________
 
  #2451  
Old 09-03-2009, 08:34 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Hi everyone,

I forgot, the other thing I'm going to try is the rotation of the "Load" 10 ohm wire wound resistor ...... maybe the wire winding direction may have some gain/loss difference in the circuit operation ?

Glen
__________________
 
  #2452  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:13 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
@Fuzzytomcat
Probatly. When you look into the Coil and its Counterclockwise, it should give a better Kickback with a Diode, i dont know, what it is like without a Diode. My Elements are all made Clockwise.
But i am still not sure about the Direction, i allways forget that after a while.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.

Last edited by Joit; 09-03-2009 at 10:16 PM.
  #2453  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:29 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
I have no recollection of a detailed simulated test on Aaron's circuit - or for that matter on the published.
In this thread: Page 30 for Schematic, Page 40 for two posts with scope shots. However, most of my more detailed SPICE-related posts were at the OU thread around here:
Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

.99
__________________
 

Last edited by poynt99; 09-03-2009 at 10:34 PM.
  #2454  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:32 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Also, a detailed look at Luc's circuit was posted in his thread a while back. See attachment:

.99
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Luc_flyback01.pdf (86.8 KB, 26 views)
__________________
 
  #2455  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:28 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joit View Post
@Fuzzytomcat
Probatly. When you look into the Coil and its Counterclockwise, it should give a better Kickback with a Diode, i dont know, what it is like without a Diode. My Elements are all made Clockwise.
But i am still not sure about the Direction, i allways forget that after a while.
Hi Joit,

I think ........ I want the best results between the Battery and Wire Wound Resistor looking towards the Mosfet drain ...... CCW or CW ..... right now mine is CCW I think it should be CW ..... whats your thoughts ?

Glen
__________________
 
  #2456  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:52 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
Hi Fuzzytomcat.
I think, they should be CCW as you have.
That better kickback from the Spike appears once at the N pole from the Coil, once from the S Pole,
depends, what direction it is wounded.
I think yours should not be bad, maybe i can do tommorow something quick to figure it out again.
But what i have seen, seems there depends at the Form from the Coil too.
This long wired ceramic Body seems are not bad. I only have to less time and to less Parts where i can play around with.

Edit-- I forgot to mention, the N Pole is allways there, where the technical Direction of Current is
-> '+' Pole <-> S <Coil> N <-> '-' Pole
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.

Last edited by Joit; 09-04-2009 at 12:42 AM.
  #2457  
Old 09-04-2009, 12:39 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hi Fuzzy. So grateful for all those efforts in making our resistor. I just so hope that it won't be time wasted. Really I owe you - on so many levels.

And it seems that since no-one else is getting entirely disheartened then it would be inappropriate for me to be so. And life definitely improves after a few hours sleep.

Poynt - if you're still there - could you please post those details again - any that are appropriate. I hate following links because it kicks me out of this connection and then it's time consuming to cross reference. So - if it's not too much trouble.

And if Harvey's around - could you give us some idea whether or not there's a point in studying Aaron's tested. If there's not a commercial value - would there maybe be some interest in that 'cooling effect' - scientifically or academically? Presumably this would then need to be re-run to get confirmation of the data.
__________________
 
  #2458  
Old 09-04-2009, 12:56 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joit View Post
Hi Fuzzytomcat.
I think, they should be CCW as you have.
That better kickback from the Spike appears once at the N pole from the Coil, once from the S Pole,
depends, what direction it is wounded.
I think yours should not be bad, maybe i can do tommorow something quick to figure it out again.
But what i have seen, seems there depends at the Form from the Coil too.
This long wired ceramic Body seems are not bad. I only have to less time and to less Parts where i can play around with.

Edit-- I forgot to mention, the N Pole is allways there, where the technical Direction of Current is
-> '+' Pole <-> S <Coil> N <-> '-' Pole
Hi Joit,

Thanks for the input ....... at the "ma" levels we the replicators are working at every little bit may help if there is a difference in rotation.

Thanks,
Glen
__________________
 
  #2459  
Old 09-04-2009, 01:26 AM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
@Fuzzytomcat
Absolutly right.

Someone postet a Link at another Forum, where someone from the Forum then did rebuild a Magnetmotor.
It did'nt run, till he did speed it up to 2000rpm with a Drill.
Then, the Rotor did speed up by his own to 40 000rpm, and fall apart about the Forces.

I think, thats a typical case of 'the little bit', too
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
  #2460  
Old 09-04-2009, 01:28 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
"Liquid" Lead Acid Batteries

Hi everyone,

Here is a PDF file from a leading battery manufacture Yuasa Batteries, Inc. with a complete listing of "Liquid" 12 Volt Lead Acid Batteries from - 2.3 aH to 18 aH

MAINTENANCE FREE Battery Specifications

Battery Specifications - page 11 and 14 of 36
Battery Manufactures "cross references" - page 16 of 36

Glen
__________________
 

Last edited by FuzzyTomCat; 09-04-2009 at 02:46 AM. Reason: added page 14
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.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers