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
  #331  
Old 03-24-2010, 01:09 PM
b4FreeEnergy b4FreeEnergy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Finally some silence ...

It’s awfully quiet here; even that silly cat is quiet!
__________________
 

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

  #332  
Old 03-24-2010, 02:29 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Bart - I'm knee deep in organising a conference call for tomorrow. Am also still trying to raise an answer from Fairchild. My phone bill this month will be ASTRONOMICAL.

But I do need to post. I want to answer jpentp in more detail. But may have to do that later tonight.

Meanwhile? What can I say. Delighted to see that we've lost Harvey? LOL. I wish.
__________________
 
  #333  
Old 03-24-2010, 03:40 PM
Jbignes5 Jbignes5 is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,015
Aaron Please don't misunderstand me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
What I said applies for the most part to most forums.

There are some forums where membership is automated for anyone that
signs up. They're usually not moderated. These heater threads are a
special case and I want my personal involvement limited to the bare
minimum. If anyone has an issue, send a PM to the admin account.

At Energetic Forum, we manually do it. We do not selectively pick who gets
in and who doesn't. We approve EVERYONE. Sometimes it takes a bit but
that is because it is time consuming and there is usually a backlog.
Obviously we don't approve bots and members from known spammer IP
lists.

It is a private membership forum that is viewable by the public and any of
the public (listed as guests) that are not members are free to
apply for membership and they'll get granted. Guests cannot make posts
or see attachments until they are in.

It is public only in that sense that this is a building with glass walls and
outside observers can see everything going on. But you can walk by a
private golf club and watch the members play but it is definitely a private
club. This is definitely a private forum even though the info is publicly
available.

This is an archive that will exist even if this forum is no longer active. I
think we'll be around a long time.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...geticforum.com
I'm not sure why the archive stops at that date indicated but in any case,
the wayback machine records quite a bit.
I never meant that as a bash on you my friend. It was merely my attempt to tell her she in fact lied when she said that this forum could support the Public domain in giving legal consent. She said that not me and my only reference to your comment was to counter her obviously not well thought out conclusions. Like my Linux explanation to serving the Public domain it is in the start of the install that states clearly that it is Public Domain and is legally binding for such to be included with the program to insure no control could be re-enforced.

It is an acceptable way to do the Public domain assertion.

Sorry about that Aaron.
__________________
 
  #334  
Old 03-24-2010, 07:19 PM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpentp View Post
I think its clear Harvey has lost faith, Glen along with him. OK we get that don't you think you should refocus your considerable skills on another project you feel as passionately for as you once did this project?

Rosemary is fully capable of advancing this circuit and theory all on her own.

Jumping in and bringing up the same points over and over again seems to look like you have a vested interest in killing this setup, I don't know it might be personal? Whatever it is it seems played out. Harvey and Glen no longer support this project we got that.
Rose still believes in it (as do I) and she in fully capable of promoting this endeavor on her own. The civilized thing to do is you go your way and let Rose go he on way.
Rose I don't say much but I do support you and I just wish you could spend more time working on and promoting the circuit and much less time defending yourself form the same allegations over and over again.

Good Luck Rose Now let the flaming commence
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" (Hebrews 11:1)

In order to hope for something and put faith in it, there must be an evident demonstration of the reality even though we ourselves have not seen the reality.

I have little or no faith in Rosemary's claims because I have seen no evidence to support them. The evidence must exist beyond the persons words themselves just as creation itself exists beyond the written words of the creator. Likewise, I have faith that wind does exist because I see the evident demonstration of the power it has. Therefore, I can put faith in the fact that it can topple trains even though I cannot see the wind itself, I have seen it blow a train off the tracks.

I do however have faith in Glen's works. They are truthful and open for all to see. They are evidence, and they are demonstrable in that a net DC current in the CSR can be reduced to nanoamps in his modified circuit. However, they do raise new questions that need to be addressed in further research. Questions that require test equipment beyond our present temporary ability to procure. If the proposed technology does exist, then it must be correctly identified and its safety must be ensured.

I cannot put faith in Rosemary because I know first hand that she has lied about myself, Glen and others. If she will lie about us and mislead the readers with false information, then she will do the same with her proposed technology. It is written, "he that is faithful in what is least, will be faithful also in what is much". Naturally the inverse is true as well. If a person hides the truth and even states "I WISH" that it leave their presence, then you can be sure that person will hide much greater secrets even from their own close relatives. The child that is practicing wrong demands that their authority 'go away' that they may not be exposed. But I tell you truthfully, that in due time all things hidden will be openly exposed. (Mark 4:22).

I would venture a guess that if the technology exists, it will not come to fruition by Rosemary's hand. But rather by the humble experimenter that seeks the truth in all things.

__________________
 
  #335  
Old 03-25-2010, 12:35 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
jpentp

Here's the thing. The membership of this forum is mostly engineers or 'technoboffins' or those who simply want to advance clean green energy. Dr Stiffler, Peter Lindemann, Aaron, Ash, GoToLuc, Alcanadian - many others - have done much, much more to advance the 'clean green' than I have or could ever do. But the circuit that I advanced is unique in that it is measurable. Caloric values are not arguable. Given a certain heat you have clear evidence of the wattage dissipated. And the protocol to measure energy delivered is well established within mainstream science. This circuit has no moving parts. It is not reliant on motors which are traditionally a 'hell' to measure. And therefore the 'proof' of efficacy can be reasonably established. That's it.

But that strength - for what it's worth - is also its weakness or 'achilles heel'. For some reason the 'switch' that introduces that 'voltage imbalance' or 'spike' which seems to be widely used, has been applied to motors, to the recharge of batteries, and NOT for purposes of generating heat. So. It's a new'ish concept. That puts it in the nature of a 'discovery'. And those more ambitious members of this and other forums resent that status. I was warned by one member that I must be prepared for the 'attack'. He was right. I was warned by another member not to trust Harvey. He was right. Both advisors are also highly respected members of this forum. The attack that I was and still am subjected to is probably the most persistent that any contributor has had to face. And the need to be wary of Harvey's motives are increasingly apparent.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 03-25-2010 at 12:51 AM.
  #336  
Old 03-25-2010, 12:52 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
But then one also needs to take on board the advices that I've been given - somewhat belatedly. It appears that with a new 'discovery' if such it is, comes the clamourous, rather jealous claims that the 'discovery' is not the discoverer's but variously belongs to new claimants or to the world at large and is then widely attributed to anyone - everyone - who is not actually the 'discoverer'. In this particular case - whatever the truth here - it's irrelevant. If its a new discovery - then it's been patented. And lest its a new discovery the patent was never registered. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it's a discovery - it certainly can never be exploited as such.

Effectively that means that regardless of who made the discovery and regardless of the reasoning behind the discovery - the technology is available and immediately so. I do hope you get this. Loud and clear. I really do not care what tribute or otherwise may come my way. I have absolutely NO INTERESTS in capitalising on this. I have no interest in any recognition - or otherwise - of this my work. BUT. I do have a very real concern. Nor may anyone else try and usurp ownership. Because I do NOT know to what extent their interest may be to claim ownership and then capitalise on that pretended ownership. If it's to advance appliances - then that's a really good thing. If it's to advance patents - then what on earth have I achieved by forfeiting my own potential rights here.
__________________
 
  #337  
Old 03-25-2010, 12:53 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Now. To effectively position themselves to 'claim' patent rights it would be critically important to claim that their replication is based on a 'modified' version of my circuit. That way the discovery becomes theirs and not mine. Does this 'ring a bell? Then it would be very important to deny the 'logic' that initiated the circuit design. Again. Does this 'ring a bell'? Then it would be useful to discredit my intellect, my ethics, my abilities and every strength that I may rely on to advance this technology. At the risk of being really repetitive 'Does this ring a bell'? Then - most importantly - they would need to take away any public reference to proof of either my claim or their own. DOES THIS RING A BELL?

Otherwise, I put it to you, that any attack is entirely inappropriate. Why would it be necessary? Surely if I want to be so misguided as to claim that the circuit works, or so misguided that I claim the thesis to support that the circuit works - either option would be of absolutely no interest to them. Why not let me 'rabbit on' in this thread and any other thread? Dr Stiffler does, Aaron does, - all the others do. So why not me? Therein is my concern. It is precisely because there is a patent potential here. All they need to do is to 'change' the claim by some small variation - then claim the discovery and patent it as required. And all they need to do is to change the thesis by some small variation - then claim the thesis as their own. Or so they hope!!!

So when there are allegations made against myself or against the technology I tend to see some real justification in addressing those allegations lest the technology is separated from its protection - being that - right now - it is truly in the public domain. And regardless of what anyone advances regarding my character or my ethics or anything at all. It's entirely irrelevant and entirely inappropriate if, indeed, the attackers' actual concerns are simply to advance the technology, or even if their concerns are that the technology is useless. That is why it is really important that Harvey does not become the 'spokesperson' for this technology - which he is trying to pretend. And that is why I need to ensure that he never does. He is NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THIS TECHNOLOGY. He never could be. He is not expert enough. And he is not - himself - talented at experimentation. And he is absolutely not honest.

This is why it alarms me. It's the actual motive behind the attack. I do hope you see this for what it is. He has absolutely NOT lost faith in the circuit. If he had he would not be so anxious to keep posting here.
__________________
 
  #338  
Old 03-25-2010, 01:06 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys, on another subject that has been intriguing me. I'd be glad of feedback here. All those motors, where magnets are positioned against other magnets - its strikes me that they ALL need to have positional changes to induce a rotation. In other words they do not seem to work unless some variation is introduced in the position of the applied magnetic field. One sees this being done manually or being proposed with the introduction of extraneous circuitry. I suggest that the actual question is how much energy is needed to introduce that positional variation?

YouTube - magnet generator free energy

I think that's the link.
__________________
 
  #339  
Old 03-25-2010, 08:29 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
jpentp

Here's the thing. The membership of this forum is mostly engineers or 'technoboffins' or those who simply want to advance clean green energy. Dr Stiffler, Peter Lindemann, Aaron, Ash, GoToLuc, Alcanadian - many others - have done much, much more to advance the 'clean green' than I have or could ever do. But the circuit that I advanced is unique in that it is measurable. Caloric values are not arguable. Given a certain heat you have clear evidence of the wattage dissipated. And the protocol to measure energy delivered is well established within mainstream science. This circuit has no moving parts. It is not reliant on motors which are traditionally a 'hell' to measure. And therefore the 'proof' of efficacy can be reasonably established. That's it.

But that strength - for what it's worth - is also its weakness or 'achilles heel'. For some reason the 'switch' that introduces that 'voltage imbalance' or 'spike' which seems to be widely used, has been applied to motors, to the recharge of batteries, and NOT for purposes of generating heat. So. It's a new'ish concept. That puts it in the nature of a 'discovery'. And those more ambitious members of this and other forums resent that status. I was warned by one member that I must be prepared for the 'attack'. He was right. I was warned by another member not to trust Harvey. He was right. Both advisors are also highly respected members of this forum. The attack that I was and still am subjected to is probably the most persistent that any contributor has had to face. And the need to be wary of Harvey's motives are increasingly apparent.
Sorry Rosemary, but you are quite wrong about this.

Engineers evaluated MOSFET heating controllers back in 1994 for NASA Space craft implementation http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1995104744.pdf and had the entire thing packaged by Argo Transdata Corp

An excerpt from that PDF reads as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NASA Document 19950004744_1995104744 Excerpt
Four heaters can be controlled from this hybrid. There are two external lines provided for each heater. The load voltage brought in on the "28 V" external pin is connected to one of these lines. The other line is connected to the drain of an International Rectifier IRFF130. This metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) is rated at 100 V and has an "on" resistance of less than 0.2 ohms. The MOSFET's are controlled by outputs from the microcontroller that are optically isolated from the MOSFET by an HP2200 optical insulator.
__________________
 
  #340  
Old 03-25-2010, 12:46 PM
Schpankme Schpankme is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
I know more...You simply don't have the intellect to grasp that electrons flow in wires.
Holy Cow I'll just use more wires and get more electrons; and here I thought "the conducting materials serve as the walls of a container holding magnetic pressure. If the conducting material is in the so-called superconducting state and the ends of the circuit are shorted the electric circuit will hold this magneto-motive pressure indefinitely, in analogy with compressed air stored in a tank. In order for this to be the result of electron flow (in the wire) requires that this flow be in perpetual motion, an unlikely proposition." - Eric Dollard

- Schpankme
__________________
 
  #341  
Old 03-25-2010, 02:02 PM
CaptainScat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schpankme View Post
Holy Cow I'll just use more wires and get more electrons; and here I thought "the conducting materials serve as the walls of a container holding magnetic pressure. If the conducting material is in the so-called superconducting state and the ends of the circuit are shorted the electric circuit will hold this magneto-motive pressure indefinitely, in analogy with compressed air stored in a tank. In order for this to be the result of electron flow (in the wire) requires that this flow be in perpetual motion, an unlikely proposition." - Eric Dollard

- Schpankme
well said...
__________________
 
  #342  
Old 03-25-2010, 04:44 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
Sorry Rosemary, but you are quite wrong about this.

Engineers evaluated MOSFET heating controllers back in 1994 for NASA Space craft implementation http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1995104744.pdf and had the entire thing packaged by Argo Transdata Corp

An excerpt from that PDF reads as follows:
Where do those engineers claim that more energy is dissipated as heat that is supplied by the energy supply source?
__________________
 
  #343  
Old 03-25-2010, 07:22 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys, for the record I have had a long session with someone who has had personal experience of patents and knows just about everything that can be known. It seems that once something is in the public domain - regardless or how briefly it is referenced then that CANNOT EVER BE PATENTED. ALSO the potential to patent even the resistors is not an option. In effect, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE BASIS OF A PATENT ON ANY SWITCHING CIRCUITRY FOR APPLICATIONS ON THIS TECHNOLOGY.

This is very good news indeed.
__________________
 
  #344  
Old 03-25-2010, 08:03 PM
EgmQC EgmQC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Guys, for the record I have had a long session with someone who has had personal experience of patents and knows just about everything that can be known. It seems that once something is in the public domain - regardless or how briefly it is referenced then that CANNOT EVER BE PATENTED. ALSO the potential to patent even the resistors is not an option. In effect, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE BASIS OF A PATENT ON ANY SWITCHING CIRCUITRY FOR APPLICATIONS ON THIS TECHNOLOGY.

This is very good news indeed.
I'm maybe wrong but what you said don't seem to apply to you. If you release a invention in the public domain BEFORE applying for a patent, what you said is true, its public so can not be patented but in your case you applied for a patent before going public no ?

Best Regards,
EgmQC
__________________
 
  #345  
Old 03-26-2010, 04:39 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgmQC View Post
I'm maybe wrong but what you said don't seem to apply to you. If you release a invention in the public domain BEFORE applying for a patent, what you said is true, its public so can not be patented but in your case you applied for a patent before going public no ?

Best Regards,
EgmQC
Indeed I did EgmQC. But I NEVER REGISTERED the patent. That's about the same status - as an unsigned document- so to speak. In order for a patent to be 'approved' it is first 'put in the public domain' or advertised - by the patenting office. I'm not sure how long this 'advertising' process is. I think it may be 6 months or a year. Just not sure. That means they've done their own search for prior art. In as much as it 'reached' this stage it also means that they did not themselves find prior art to justify their denial of the patent. Then - the reason they advertise is to allow the public to 'counter claim'. They, the public, must then show proof of their own 'published work'. In the absense of a counterclaim they then invite the applicant to REGISTER the patent. I used that 'advertising process' to PUT THE ART INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Then I refused their invitation to 'register' the patent. That way I achieved my objects.

I simply did not realise that either I could publish myself or that I could publish it on forums such as this. I had no idea that such forums existed. You must remember that before Energetic Forum took interest in this device there was absolutely NO INTEREST in this circuit. I could not even get academics to LOOK AT A DEMONSTRATION. And then, as now, my only interest is to get academic endorsement. I see this as the 'final barrier' to wide acceptance that those themodynamic laws need some radical amendment.
__________________
 
  #346  
Old 03-26-2010, 05:42 AM
CaptainScat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
The reality is, electrons do move in wires...
i'm getting the idea that you are suggesting that electrons are discrete particles, surely this isn't what you are suggesting is it?
__________________
 
  #347  
Old 03-26-2010, 06:47 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Please answer the question! When have electrons been ascribed to current flow in ANY PUBLISHED THESIS.???

SCRATCH THAT.

edited. When has current flow been PROVEN TO BE A FLOW OF ELECTRONS IN ANY PUBLISHED THESIS?
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 03-29-2010 at 07:45 AM.
  #348  
Old 03-26-2010, 07:57 AM
CaptainScat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
Of course electrons are discrete particles. Those are the little things that strike the inside of a CRT and react with the phosphor to produce photons. They are controlled by magnetic fields called yoke coils. The little heater in the 'Electron Gun' in the neck of the CRT is an 'Emitter'.

These discrete particles are accelerated at the High Voltage Anode because they have an electrical charge near unity while the Anode has an electric charge of about 15KV. So when they strike the phosphor they have a pretty good velocity and that velocity is converted to light from the impact.

It is the particle found in the lower left corner of this chart:




I hope that helps
doesn't help in the least... how then do you reconcile 'renormalisation'? you must assume finite dimensions for the particle, else the spherical electromagnetic waves would reach infinite fields strengths when the radius of the spherical electromagnetic waves tends to zero. subtracting infinity from infinity is as feynmann described... a dippy process.
"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent. ... I suspect that renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate." Richard Feynman
maxwell's equations cannot describe a spherical electromagnetic wave because there are no wave solutions of maxwell's equations in spherical co-ordinates... the electron, just like the photon is a mathematical construct to describe energy exchange.

what's next? are you going to expound on the paradoxical concept of the particle / wave duality?

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." Erwin Schrodinger

"Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion." Albert Einstein

have you ever seen an electron?
__________________
 

Last edited by CaptainScat; 03-26-2010 at 08:21 AM.
  #349  
Old 03-26-2010, 07:58 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
Eric,

Just in case you missed it by Rosemary's burying technique I brought it up front. But I wanted to add that if you have any questions I'll try to answer them as quickly as possible, but this thread is very time consuming and quite unproductive so I don't read here much anymore unless I'm directed to specific posts that need my attention. I'm sorry if you have asked these things before and I missed your questions.

WHO IS THIS ERIC? schpankme is NOT ERIC DOLLARD. Or if he is - abject apologies. ERIC DOLLARD is a genius experimenter who has managed to duplicate most if not all of Tesla's experiments. I understood that schpankme was simply quoting eric dollard.
__________________
 
  #350  
Old 03-26-2010, 08:03 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
Well the way you keep flipping back and forth between what you mean it's hard to keep up.

Ok, so you do say that Zipons get hot when they slow down. Good.

My hypothetical machine which I hypothetically built for less than one hundred hypothetical dollars grabs your hypothetical Zipons and slows them down so they get real hot. And then it smashes them into a hypothetical Graphene plate that outputs the thermal energy by infra red radiation.

So, if this does not have anything to do with your thesis then fantastic. I guess I can hypothetically start production right away because it must be a hypothetical new discovery.
Go for it. And good luck.
__________________
 
  #351  
Old 03-27-2010, 06:18 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Energetic Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 218
Arrow Attention

Without taking the time to read through hundreds of posts, but just looking at the last few pages, it appears that a REMINDER is needed.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...uncements.html

Energetic Forum is a place for the sharing of positive uplifting ideas, technologies, modalities and discussion.

We believe that all humankind is connected at a fundamental level...

We believe that each of us is responsible to conduct ourselves, individually, and in relation to all humankind, in a manner that reflects only light.

Questionable posts that threaten to disrupt the purpose, flow and good nature of this forum will not be tolerated.

It is important to follow these simple rules so as not to jeopardize your account.


READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING (public posts AND/OR Private Messages)

1. DO NOT post messages that could be considered offensive, inflammatory or that are aimed at starting problems with other members.

2. DO NOT post messages that might infringe upon the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, rights of publicity, or other proprietary rights of others.

3. Do not SPAM this forum with Messages or unsolicited advertisements for products or services.

4. Do not create multiple accounts. Each member should only have 1 account for themselves that they post from. Multiple accounts from one IP must be cleared with the Administrators.

The Administrators of this forum reserve the right to remove any messages or users from this forum for any conduct that they deem to be outside, or against, the positive nature of this forum.

The Energetic Forum Community is a powerful force for discovery, self-help, and change. Every Member is equally important and valuable.

We understand that anyone may make mistakes, respond in a negative emotional manner, lose their temper, etc., however if someone repeatedly acts in a manner that is non-productive, unfortunately, we will need to take action.



We do NOT want to lock this thread, we do NOT want to have to send out PM warnings or ban anybody.


Please keep your posts to
sharing of positive
uplifting ideas, technologies, modalities and discussion.




__________________
Energetic Forum Administrator
http://www.energeticforum.com
  #352  
Old 03-28-2010, 12:58 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Energetic Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 218
Smile Fresh Start

FRESH START

So that we do not have to go through every post in this thread and determine which ones comply with Forum Policy, we are asking that starting with this post a FRESH START.

No personal attacks, defenses, innuendo's.

That does not mean that questions and discussions cannot take place, just make sure they are respectful of all parties.

If you cannot post with respect to all other members, then don't make the post.

Have fun, and lots of us are looking to the members of the Renewable Energy sub-forum to make some substantial changes in the way we all buy, store and consume energy
!


__________________
Energetic Forum Administrator
http://www.energeticforum.com
  #353  
Old 03-29-2010, 01:50 AM
ashtweth's Avatar
ashtweth ashtweth is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,499
Send a message via Skype™ to ashtweth
Thank you Admin a fresh start is what we all need.
__________________
 
  #354  
Old 03-29-2010, 04:21 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
THANK YOU CATLADY

Have paged through the entire thread from the beginning and see an awful lot related to the 'paper'. Not sure that it's relevant. I've taken a full copy of this thread so have any record that may be required.

I've also attempted to revise or delete any posts of mine that are clearly unnecessarily confrontational.
THANK YOU AGAIN.

__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 03-29-2010 at 04:40 AM. Reason: Corrected
  #355  
Old 03-29-2010, 04:55 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Here's my 'fresh start'. The following is an extract from a letter sent to one of our learned and revered. I'm still pressing on - pressing on. I trust the arguments are valid. LOL.

Dear Professor,

Classical physics assumes that when you use a battery, for instance, as the supply of electric energy to any circuitry, then that is the sole source of energy to that circuit. In other words, should the battery deliver, say 10 watts of energy and 5 watts are then dissipated on the circuit as heat, then only 5 watts are then available as stored energy. Mainstream argument variously allows that this 5 watts can be returned to the supply source. But even then - it prescribes that ONLY 5 watts may be returned. What we prove is that closer to 10 watts of energy is returned to the battery supply source. This should not be possible and suggests that there is an alternate source of energy. This is the whole of my thesis and always has been.

I am trying to point to the fact that energy is available in conductive and inductive circuitry. The circuit material itself is a potential energy supply source. This is why this circuit was used to prove that thesis. The proof is unequivocal. I have been trying to alert academics to this for many years. We. the public, are assured that science is always based on experimental evidence. That academic electrical engineers would not replicate nor would they attend a demonstration to show this gain, speaks to a certain contradiction here. Their belief, based as it is on the limitations in the exchange of energy, is paramount. There was an apparent determined need to frustrate any evidence that may contradict this, their 'belief'. On the whole, I would have thought that this attitude would be more appropriate to a study of philosophy or religion, rather than science. Had I simply 'said' that it is possible to crash through this energy barrier their objections would be valid. As it is I 'showed' this evidence. And they would not 'look'. This includes Professor *****. Again. No academic electrical engineer that I approached, in all of South Africa, was prepared to evaluate the evidence based as it was on a full disclosure of the experimental apparatus and its results. Various public companies however, were prepared to look. I had five such independent accreditations from 5 different public companies all of which are listed and quoted on just about every stock exchange in the world. Sasol even offered UCT a bursary award to take this study further. That award was politely declined due to an entire want of interest.

The good news however is that this entrenched attitude to resist this claim is gradually changing. I have record now that 5 academic electrical engineers will evaluate the experimental evidence when we get the appliance up and running at 2 kilowatts. Why the principle is any different if the value is 5 watts or 2 kilowatts, eludes me. But I am grateful for whatever interest they show. But the facts are that the measurement at 5 watts is valid, unequivocal and is within the constraints of the most sophisticated measuring instruments and is probably more accurately dependable than wattages in the kilowatt range. However, that aside, the fact is that I'm grateful for any accreditation. However, any paper that is published on this experiment still requires the 'lower' wattage levels. The average tektronix equipment simply cannot deal with the high voltage levels that will be generated at this larger scale. It would destroy that equipment. And the average utility watt meters available do not perform within the required range of accuracy.


But 5 potential accreditors is 5 more than I ever managed before. But that's only repesentative of 2 campuses. My target here is all local universities. All 5!!!!
__________________
 
  #356  
Old 03-29-2010, 05:55 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
And here's a preliminary revised evaluation of the tests taken on Glen's replication

TEK00000 - 0.00 WATTS
TEK00002 + 3.59 WATTS
TEK00004 + 2.46 WATTS
TEK00006 - 0.87 WATTS
TEK00008 - 0.04 WATTS
TEK00010 + 4.91 WATTS
TEK00012 - 0.17 WATTS
TEK00014 - 0.09 WATTS
TEK00016 - 0.71 WATTS
TEK00018 - 0.42 WATTS
TEK00020 - 0.12 WATTS

average performance over the entire test period was, therefore 0.822 watts.
Heat dissipated was an average of 5.5 Watts.
THEREFORE COP > 6.23 OR 669%

No heat profile was conducted on the mosfet arrangement and the attached heat sink nor on the shunt resistor. Yet there was clear measured evidence of heat being disipated at both points. Temperature measured at both points was higher than evidenced at the load. If these values were also factored in as wattage dissipated at a conservative three quarters of the wattage at the load then the actual wattage dissipated as heat would have been 5.5 * 75% plus 5.5 being 9.62 Watts. This would place COP at anything between 6.23 and 11.7.

It is not an ideal test evaluation. Ideally the test should be run and data logged continuously over an extended period of time. But this was not possible given the equipment available. However, what is significant is that there were any records at all of negative wattage delivered. This should not be possible according to mainstream predictions. Yet it is clearly a predominant condition of this circuit. It is also evident in the occassional recharge of the battery which is not typically known to climb when run under load conditions.

What is signficant is that any value of wattage that is recorded to be greater than COP 1 is quite simply not expected within classical prediction on this circuitry. And measurement of temperature rise is widely considered to be sufficient proof of the wattage dissipated. Therefore, in all cases and under all possible conditions, this circuit is capable of exceeding classical prediction even under the most conservative assessment. And this using classical measurement protocols.

These measurements were confined to multiple waveform sample range which is required for 'proof' of data. Faster time scales or fewer samples fall outside the range of accuracy required by Tektronix.
__________________
 
  #357  
Old 03-29-2010, 06:00 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
@Glen.

The wattage recorded in the previous post really needs to be shown against the waveform - especially as this relates to the harmonics that can be seen in those scope shots.

May I please ask you to post the appropriate waveforms that our readers can see the significance of the results against those 'patterns'. Else may I have your permission to do this?
__________________
 
  #358  
Old 03-30-2010, 07:20 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
No answer yet from Glen? In the absence of such I'll assume it's OK. I'll try and get these posted over the weekend if I can't manage it sooner.

I've had a bit of a set back and am still smarting. The Professor who I wrote to, above, is a phsycist. He advised me that he simply 'does not believe' that we acheived those numbers. He stated that we've made a 'measurements' error and it is entirely 'improbable' that the test results are anything like the disclosed.

I countered that - in the event there was a 'clear' error in measurement then this would have been seen by the electrical engineering experts and that they would not have hesitated to point it out to us. I advised him that their expertise in measurement is greater than his own. He conceded this. Nonetheless. He is ADAMANT. There MUST be a measurements error. He BELIEVES that there is a measurements error. On this basis he will NOT do anything at all to recommend the advancement of the technology.

It seems that 'belief' is still the predominant factor in the evaluation of ANYTHING AT ALL. I had the dubious satisfaction of stating that this is NOT SCIENTIFIC based as it is on 'belief'. He put the phone down on me.

I shall complain about this attitude to the Dean of the Faculty and to the Assistant Registrar of the university. Personally I think this attitude is a disgrace and it should NOT BE ADVANCED BY ANY ACADEMIC PURPORTING TO TEACH SCIENCE. Surely there is some moral imperative that experimental evidence is still the 'acid test' of science.

__________________
 
  #359  
Old 03-30-2010, 07:37 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Energetic Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 218
We apologize for letting this thread get out of hand. We had not been monitoring it.

We are committed to maintaining a good-natured atmosphere here at Energetic Forum where people are free to discuss, challenge, learn, and explore, but respect must be shown at all times. No derogatory comments will be permitted and any posts that contain them will be deleted.

It took us several hours to clean up this thread. We believe we deleted all posts that did not follow forum guidelines, but if any were missed, please message us and let us know.

Unfortunately, many posts containing derogatory comments also contained valuable information which also was deleted. Lets keep it clean and positive so that this does not happen again.

We are excited about the fresh start. Have fun. Keep exploring.
__________________
Energetic Forum Administrator
http://www.energeticforum.com
  #360  
Old 03-30-2010, 08:25 PM
b4FreeEnergy b4FreeEnergy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
So many ‘interventions’ of ‘admin’ and that in such a short time?

Things said in this thread were not always nice and beautiful but what I always wonder in such ‘intervention ‘cases is: “who will be the judge”?
Will it be the administrator just because he’s the administrator and based on what, his infallible judgment? How do you choose between something that is ok and something that is not ok? When is it censure and when is it well done? I was not always happy about the ‘style’ used in this thread but I don’t have a good feeling about those interventions either, a thread will be self-regulating in the end anyway.
If anything written or posted here can be wiped away just like that how can you ‘trust’ this site and will it be any better than government ‘secretizing’ I don’t know what? People sometimes differ in opinions and sometimes it gets rough but that’s part of it. It’s not that nobody reacted on such things and there was no change in behavior. Now it’s not even possible to read it all again and make up your own mind. Some pieces are still there, some are wiped away. Some people saved what was there already off-line, etc, etc...
A really thin line to walk on!
Best regards,
B
__________________
 
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 01:04 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