The Extraluminal Transmission Systems of Tesla and Alexanderson by Eric Dollard

The Secret of Tesla's Power Magnification

Energetic Forum  

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

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 12:07 AM
Doc Doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
CHARLES FLYNN Free Energy Generator

I came across this step by step process to produce an energy generator without any moving parts.

The YouTube link is: YouTube - Free Energy - Power Generator
It contains a combination of the Meisner circuit with the Flynns magnetic amplification circuit.

Additional info is the US patent 6246561 of 2001.

It appears to be relatively simple to build, BUT has anyone done it yet?
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
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 12:38 AM
Matthew Jones Matthew Jones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,063
Looks like an MEG to me. There is also this one:
Electromagnetic convertor with ... - Google Patent Search

Peter Lindemann pointed me to that one. It is similar in the fashion of being motionless.

Its probably feasible but like T. Bearden says, they are hard to tune and set up, lots of variables.

Cheers
Matt
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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 05:54 AM
Joit Joit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,930
I dont think that it works in any way, sounds more like a theoretical sleepless Night what he got, and trow some things together.
It is not that simple, as some just figure for some Devices.
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
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 06:31 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
I have done some superficial FEMM modeling of the flux switching portion of this Flynn circuit, as have others.

It has been found that when the proper size and material core, proper number of windings and off the shelf magnets of sufficient strength, it is possible to switch 1.2T of flux in the output sections with as little as 0.006A (6mA).

Therefore, this design would seem to have merit - however the simulations also indicate that the Flynn setup has losses associated with each winding and there are four windings.

It is one of those things, that when one person builds it and demonstrates it to self run, then everyone will build them. But until that occurs, we all remain skeptical.

This is why the experimenter is so valuable to the progress of any technology - because without the builders the evaluators will have nothing to evaluate but numbers to be erased or forgotten. The real world often deviates from the Ideal. We tend to imagine in perfection dismissing all imperfection or unknowns. But reality is fraught with both and these are the real hurdles that must be cleared to make progress.

Important factors to this design:

High permeability low coercivity core
Wide flux path
LOW resistance windings
Minimize drive power

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
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 03:13 PM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
It doesn't work. At all. Don't waste your time with it.
It doesn't work because Faraday's "law" is incorrect. Part of the proof of this is that nobody has had any success with the Flynn device or with the MEG. I don't care what Bearden or Nauden claim, they aren't telling you the truth.
You can send flux from a permanent magnet through the core of a coil all day, change it back and forth as much as you want, and you still won't get one milliamp of current for it. This is because the flux from a permanent magnet, and that produced by a coil with an alternating current, are different!
There has to be a differential in phase between the voltage and the current in a transformer before there is any induction into the secondary. This is the real prerequisite. A phase difference in the electricity in turn creates a differential in phase between the B and the H fields. A phase differential in the magnetic flux is the key to producing any power through induction.
When there is no differential, as in the flux from a permanent magnet, there is no induction as is the case in the Flynn device and the MEG.
You won't learn this in school, but extensive experimental evidence has proved this point. Bearden is full of crap, IMHO.

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 04:26 PM
Doc Doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
My primary point in starting this thread is that of all the so called "free energy" devices out there, this one not only appears simple enough, but someone has actually provided a step by step video process, albeit theoretical, to make one. Something I have found to be quite rare. With all this information there is almost no evidence either for or against that anyone has experimented with this device.

Is it because the theory doesn't hold water or is it because it appears too simple to work.

Whenever someone comes up with a design, they either patent it (Why bother) or they start selling plans of it, but there is never or very little feedback of these "machines" ever working.

For the love of GOD when are the inventors out there going to realize that IF ever you produce a "free energy" device you are not going to change the world (if you patent it) and neither are you going to get rich.

The only way you will ever change the world is if you place your working plans out in the open for everyone to replicate, free of charge, just as you received the information, free of charge. Has history not taught us that any inventor that has a brilliant epiphany was never able to change anything except his life span on this planet.
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
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 06:25 PM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
My primary point in starting this thread is that of all the so called "free energy" devices out there, this one not only appears simple enough, but someone has actually provided a step by step video process, albeit theoretical, to make one. Something I have found to be quite rare. With all this information there is almost no evidence either for or against that anyone has experimented with this device.

Is it because the theory doesn't hold water or is it because it appears too simple to work.
I have built both the Flynn version and the MEG, and many other variations besides. None worked at all. I'd try it with the magnets in, then take them out and replace them with steel: no difference.
The theory I explained above is the result of hundreds of hours of building and experimenting. If Faraday's Law actually worked as stated, we'd be rolling in free energy.
I don't mean to imply that magnets can't produce lots of free energy, quite the contrary actually, just not through those types of devices.
Magnets are permanent energy generating devices just sitting there. The problem is that they are normally in a state of balance, where no excess energy can be harvested from them. What the Flynn unit can do is teach us about redirecting magnetic flux, which is the key to unbalancing and unlocking the power in magnets.

Ted

BTW, I share your frustration.
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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2010, 07:57 PM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Ewert View Post
It doesn't work. At all. Don't waste your time with it.
It doesn't work because Faraday's "law" is incorrect. Part of the proof of this is that nobody has had any success with the Flynn device or with the MEG. I don't care what Bearden or Nauden claim, they aren't telling you the truth.
You can send flux from a permanent magnet through the core of a coil all day, change it back and forth as much as you want, and you still won't get one milliamp of current for it. This is because the flux from a permanent magnet, and that produced by a coil with an alternating current, are different!
There has to be a differential in phase between the voltage and the current in a transformer before there is any induction into the secondary. This is the real prerequisite. A phase difference in the electricity in turn creates a differential in phase between the B and the H fields. A phase differential in the magnetic flux is the key to producing any power through induction.
When there is no differential, as in the flux from a permanent magnet, there is no induction as is the case in the Flynn device and the MEG.
You won't learn this in school, but extensive experimental evidence has proved this point. Bearden is full of crap, IMHO.

Ted
With all due respect, if what you say were true then permanent magnet (PM) motors, PM generators and Magnetos wouldn't work.

The H Field associated with electromagnetism in the Flynn magnetic circuit for us as experimenters represents that field produced by the input coils. Since these are coils, they are inductors and the voltage and current phase is shifted in them accordingly.

The B Field in that magnetic circuit represents the combined flux density produced in and around the core by the input coils, the magnets and the output coils collapsing fields. It is a vector which changes direction according to the H field vector produced in the input coils. Because the B field is a composite in this case, it will continue to exist without any power applied by virtue of the PM's. It should be noted here that the field in these cases are Vector Fields and therefore represent different magnitudes and directions for many of the points in the 3D space comprising that field.

The H and B fields are very contextual and if we do not include the context with which the terms are used then in can lead to some confusion. Interestingly, a contextual chart has been provided showing the alternate names for both B and H here in this section of the Magnetic Field article on Wikipedia. You can see from this chart, that I have applied the H to the magnetizing field as applied by physicists and the B to the flux density as applied by electrical engineers. I do this because that is how I separate the fields in my own work, from a source perspective. When a source of a magnetic field acts to magnetize an object, even its own core then I view that as an H field while the magnetic flux induced in that object is what I consider to be the B field. This is why we say that PM's have a B field, because first, an H field is used to create them. Confusingly, once the B field exists, it can be used as an H field to magnetize a new object.

Some have tried to separate the terms by attaching specific attributes to them. For example, using Gauss's law of magnetism this section states that B Field lines never end because they are present inside of a material and this section states that an external H field terminates at the induced poles of the object and a different H field of reverse direction exists internally. I say whatever paradigm works in your mind to keep the math equations relating to this in the proper perspective. When you see a formula for electromagnetic interaction that includes both the H and B fields, you need to have the concept well in mind as to what the author of that formula is specifically referring to by those terms.

I think much of the confusion arises from different authors, such as Faraday, Maxwell, Ampere and Gauss using these terms in different ways within their respective equations. And now with SI trying to homogenize the terms into a comprehensive format while giving certain credit to specific pioneers in the field i.e Tesla vs. Weber, we have more things to evaluate. But hopefully the SI process will result in a solid standard in the future that removes any doubt as to what H and B mean without the need for contextual validation. It may require rewriting the works of former authors in an SI format to solidify it all.

Cheers,

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
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2010, 04:26 AM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
Ok, if B field and H field are too confusing for you we'll just stick to flux.
A change in flux DOES NOT guarantee induction through anything. A square wave will pass very nicely through a transformer even though during the DC portion of the wave there is no change in flux. Conversely, I can reverse the flux through a coil core with a permanent magnet and get absolutely no induced current in the coil. I have done this in numerous ways, and here is one of the experiments I did:



The coil had a steel core and was wound bifiler, with the second winding connected to a load through both a volt and current meter. I also had the waveform on a scope.
The primary winding of the coil was fed a low frequency square wave, with enough voltage to force the magnets away from the core about an inch.
The magnets were encased in plastic tubes so they wouldn't flip over.
There is absolutely no doubt that the core of the coil was polarized opposite to the magnets since it physically forced them away from the core. Then the magnets were attracted back to the core once it turned off. They consequently repolarized the core in the original direction according to their polarity. There was undoubtedly a change in flux.
Nevertheless, no extra power was measured on the meters or on the scope. The power into the secondary winding was identical with or without the magnets. This defies Faraday's law of induction and shows why the Flynn device, and the MEG, won't work. It also shows that even though a magnet is moving with respect to the core, no induction will take place until that magnet moves at some angle across the core.
This gets back to your statement that "if what you say were true then permanent magnet (PM) motors, PM generators and Magnetos wouldn't work."
What I said was that there had to be a change in magnetic phase before induction took place. In a generator, the action of a magnet passing by a coil induces current into that coil because there is such a phase differential caused by the motion of the magnet. The magnet will not induce any current into a coil if it travels straight at it (as in the example above). It has to move by at 90 degrees to the axis of the coil.
I encourage you to try the experiment outlined above, or something similar, and see this phenomenon for yourself.
I'm sure a smart guy like Bedini knew all about this problem when he gave the MEG to Bearden.

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2010, 10:43 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Hi Ted,

I would be very interested in seeing the output data associated with your tests.

I do see some problems though in your assumptions.

1. You have incorrectly assumed that I am confused about the H and B fields in magnetics - probably because you have misread my comments where I have used the words confused and confusingly.

2. You have not included in your analysis the work performed in moving the mass of the magnets approximately 4 inches in total. This energy must be included in your output calculations

3. The assumption that a reversal of flux direction would somehow be responsible for an increase in power at a load applied to a bifilar secondary winding of a solenoid iron core transformer.

4. You have not addressed here in your comments the need for a change in flux over time. To be measurable, the change must occur above a specific rate for the materials used. If your frequency is so slow that it allows for the motion of the magnets in a tube, it could be too slow to measure the induced values.

While I am not the brightest among my contemporaries, I do have a reasonably sound understanding of the laws of electromagnetism. I also have good reason to believe that if kinetic energy is extracted from a system that it needs to be included in the calculations - especially where motors are concerned and your test apparatus is a reciprocating motor.

While Faraday's Law can be expressed as two different phenomenon I don't think this is where the problem is in your case. In your example, the flux is only changing in direction, not in magnitude and it is the magnitude change which results in density variance in the windings needed for transformation.

However, there are some things characteristic to your setup that could result in minor variances that could be measured. For one thing, the B field of the PM is not homogeneous, but instead arcs away from one pole to the other pole. This is exacerbated by the reversal of the primary winding current (or in your case the application of it) which magnetizes the core in the opposite direction and pushes the magnets away. When this occurs, there is some flux of varying density which passes through the end windings. But these will be very weak by comparison to the solenoid field, especially when the magnet is moved away at a distance where the B field density falls off at 1/x³ (that's cubed, not squared)

Here is an experiment for you to try:
Stand your coil so that the core is vertical removing the lower tube and magnet but leaving the upper tube in place. We are going to use gravity to accelerate the magnet. You may want to put a thin layer of foam or cloth between the core and the magnet to prevent chipping your magnet from the impact. Connect your scope to the coil windings and set it at a low V/div setting. The magnet will drop initially at 9.8m/s² but will accelerate slightly faster when the core begins to react to the incoming B field and magnetic attraction begins. You can use those times and your tube length to determine where to set your timebase on your scope. Drop the magnet and measure the vertical deflection (volts) on the scope. You'll want to do several drops to prove to yourself that this type of flux interaction does induce a voltage in the windings. If you measure no voltage, then your settings are either too high, your tube is too short or your magnets are too weak. Compare your results to the predicted results from Maxwell's equation. Are they different? If so, why do think that is?

Respectfully,

Harvey
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
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2010, 02:44 PM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
Hi Harvey,
Sorry for the confusion over confusion. I just don't want to get bogged down in a battle over semantics. My main point is that the Flynn device and the Meg don't work as shown. My secondary point is my theory why.
Quote:
2. You have not included in your analysis the work performed in moving the mass of the magnets approximately 4 inches in total. This energy must be included in your output calculations
Because it's irrelevant. There is no net loss in energy since the coil provides the energy to push the magnets away, and the magnets provide the return trip energy. It's very much like the gravity experiment you suggested.

Quote:
3. The assumption that a reversal of flux direction would somehow be responsible for an increase in power at a load applied to a bifilar secondary winding of a solenoid iron core transformer.
According to Faraday it is. That is not only a change in direction, but also a change in flux density within the core. The only thing that didn't change was the power output. I could have passed those magnets by the coil at 90 degrees at the same velocity they were traveling straight towards to coil, and they would produce a very measurable amount of power. Think about that one.

Quote:
4. You have not addressed here in your comments the need for a change in flux over time. To be measurable, the change must occur above a specific rate for the materials used. If your frequency is so slow that it allows for the motion of the magnets in a tube, it could be too slow to measure the induced values.
The square wave duty cycle was the same duration as the magnets returning and repolarizing the core. I could see the the square wave on the scope and measure it's induced power into the secondary. The magnets were doing the same thing magnetically to the core, as was the square wave, according to Faraday and academia, yet it was not producing any power in the secondary. This is the point! The mere fact that I could see a perfectly formed square wave on the scope, across the secondary, should raise all kinds of red flags about Faraday's observations in and of itself. That the reversal and subsequent substantial flux flow through the core induces nothing in the secondary is also damning. There was no "time" issue in this experiment, either with the magnets or the bandwidth of the coil.
As I mentioned above, I have done many of these types of experiments, this just being one example. I have done experiments with magnets in closed loops, double loops, double coils and a host of other configurations. I base my conclusions on what I have consistently found as the result of these extensive experiments.
Might I suggest doing some actual experiments with magnets and coils yourself instead of relying on archaic theories. Experimental results always hold far more weight than academic assumptions.

Cheers,

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2010, 02:47 PM
nvisser's Avatar
nvisser nvisser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 754
Send a message via Skype™ to nvisser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Ewert View Post
I have built both the Flynn version and the MEG, and many other variations besides. None worked at all. I'd try it with the magnets in, then take them out and replace them with steel: no difference.
The theory I explained above is the result of hundreds of hours of building and experimenting. If Faraday's Law actually worked as stated, we'd be rolling in free energy.
I don't mean to imply that magnets can't produce lots of free energy, quite the contrary actually, just not through those types of devices.
Magnets are permanent energy generating devices just sitting there. The problem is that they are normally in a state of balance, where no excess energy can be harvested from them. What the Flynn unit can do is teach us about redirecting magnetic flux, which is the key to unbalancing and unlocking the power in magnets.
Ted
BTW, I share your frustration.
Will this method of redirecting flux not work good to run a magnet only motor by changing the pole of the last magnet that normally cannot be past as it reach it, by means of a hall switch that triggers a coil by that magnet at the right time?
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
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2010, 04:20 PM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvisser View Post
Will this method of redirecting flux not work good to run a magnet only motor by changing the pole of the last magnet that normally cannot be past as it reach it, by means of a hall switch that triggers a coil by that magnet at the right time?
The coil itself will create the little bit of push needed to get by the sticky spot, but you could also redirect some PM flux if you like.
I use these principals in the motor I'm developing right now. Take a peak if your interested:
Killer Motor - Page 4 - Heretical Builders

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2010, 09:25 PM
Doc Doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Ewert View Post
I have built both the Flynn version and the MEG, and many other variations besides. None worked at all. I'd try it with the magnets in, then take them out and replace them with steel: no difference.
The theory I explained above is the result of hundreds of hours of building and experimenting. If Faraday's Law actually worked as stated, we'd be rolling in free energy.
I don't mean to imply that magnets can't produce lots of free energy, quite the contrary actually, just not through those types of devices.
Magnets are permanent energy generating devices just sitting there. The problem is that they are normally in a state of balance, where no excess energy can be harvested from them. What the Flynn unit can do is teach us about redirecting magnetic flux, which is the key to unbalancing and unlocking the power in magnets.

Ted

BTW, I share your frustration.
Hi TED

You are a true champion, and I must add, probably one of the few who is in the thick of things actually taking many of these designs and seeing if they are workable, unlike the thousands of armchair critics who voice there 2 cents worth adding nothing but hot air.

There are 2 types of people in the world, doers and talkers, the world is full of talkers, thats why there is global warming...too much hot air from all their %#$&.

I must commend you as a doer, the world needs more like you.

My electronically challenged disposition has never stopped me from attempting to build some of the more credible proposals out there, but isn't it always the same, that the inventor always leaves out a few critical aspects that never allows anyone to be able to move past it, so instead of hope leaping on the horizon, we crawl back into our hole of disillusionment mumbling that "free energy" is just another myth...however for some ridiculous reason, holding onto hope that there may be a decent human being left on this planet that honestly and truly wishes to share his knowledge and make life better for billions who suffer under the strain of exorbitant energy costs.

If I have to read another article about phone taps and men in black cars visiting them because of what they know...what utter garbage.

Someone with a credible background who is of good standing should start a thread about all the BS energy machines out there and give good valid reason why they are useless, and perhaps one that provides units that are definitely worth looking into with the excitement and vigor they deserve.
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
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2010, 09:59 PM
Doc Doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
I wonder if this information would add to the debate...

Now, whether we like it or not, there is new information that forces us to throw this entire model of "flux cutting" and relative motion between conductor and magnet out the window, or at least subject it to dramatic changes. For MIT's own Dr. Bruce DePalma has reminded us that electric current can be generated with the conductor and the magnet moving at exactly the same speed - thus eliminating any possibility that the flux lines could be "cut." For if the magnet is moving, the flux lines should automatically be moving along with it in conventional theory. This bizarre and interesting means of generating electric current was actually discovered by famous pioneer physicist Michael Faraday on Dec. 26, 1831, but until DePalma came along, no one ever paid any attention to it.

DePalma's prospect is actually quite easy to prove, and he did so many times. To generate electricity without any "flux line cutting," you don't even need anything but one piece that rotates by itself – no "stator magnet" is necessary whatsoever. And that right there would stop most engineers in their tracks. It is believed that you must always have at least two pieces in a generator – the stationary magnet or magnets and the spinning rotor wrapped with wire. In Faraday's design, seen in the image above, he took a cylindrical magnet, shaped like a candle with both edges cut perfectly flat, and attached a thin piece of paper over its top edge. Over the paper he cemented on a flat, coin-shaped disc of copper that was several times wider than the cylinder. By its very nature, the copper could conduct electricity, if there was any electricity to conduct. Once cemented together, the two pieces thus had no choice but to spin at exactly the same rate, so no “flux cutting” could occur.

To Faraday's amazement and bewilderment, when he rotated this object he could extract an electric current from it, even though it was only a rotor – there were no other moving parts! There was a cylinder-shaped magnet and a coin-shaped conductor, and they were both moving at exactly the same speed. All he had to do was to attach a copper "brush" to the outside edge of the conducting disc and another "brush" to the metal axle that touched the center of the disc. These ‘brushes’ are just what they sound like; pieces of fine copper wire that can touch an object with enough force to conduct electricity, but also lightly enough to permit it to move. The two "brushes" were then wired into the opposite ends of a galvanometer to measure electric
current; and indeed, a current could be detected! (A galvanometer uses a needle that moves when electricity is passed through it. No one in the scientific mainstream will believe that this could work if you try to explain it to them, because it violates the “laws” of electromagnetic energy.

This obviously was a cause of great fascination to Faraday, but he had no means to explain it and thus nothing else was done with it. Here, we will suggest that the magnetic energy itself is like a fluid, and by "throwing" or “spraying” the fluid out to the far edge of the conducting disc through rotation, a current is generated. Essentially, the aetheric energy is being drawn in through the center of the disc and is radiated out the sides. If you could see the basic magnetic energy field as this was happening, it would look
like a donut-shaped sphere whose central axis was shared with the axis running through the disc. The radiated aetheric energy could be visualized in a similar manner as the water that flies off of a wet dog's body when it shakes itself dry, or the water that is pumped through a hose and released by a rotating sprinkler nozzle to water a person's yard.

In DePalma's case, he discovered that even having a separate conductor and magnet was not necessary to produce this effect. All he needed was a single strip of flat, magnetized material that could also conduct electricity. This strip was then fashioned into a flat, disc shaped spiral like a giant lollipop, such that one end terminated at the spinning axle and the other end terminated at the outside rim of the disc.
One pole of the magnet would be wound up into the center, and the other pole of the magnet would be at the outside edge of the spiral. By simply rotating this one-piece magnetic conductor, electric current could be
drawn from the disc.

So again, we are doing the impossible - rotating a one-piece magnetized conducting disc and drawing energy out of it. Now this is where the real problem for scientists comes up: time after time, DePalma was able to
show that these "homopolar" or one-piece rotating generators were actually superior in performance to the typical two-piece stator and rotor design that we discussed above. In fact, these generators were more than superior; they appeared to be impossible, as they created more electrical energy output than it took to spin them. It is from this simple and yet incredible principle that DePalma created his own "free energy" device, known as the N-Machine.
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
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:39 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Ewert View Post
Hi Harvey,
Sorry for the confusion over confusion. I just don't want to get bogged down in a battle over semantics. My main point is that the Flynn device and the Meg don't work as shown. My secondary point is my theory why.
Because it's irrelevant. There is no net loss in energy since the coil provides the energy to push the magnets away, and the magnets provide the return trip energy. It's very much like the gravity experiment you suggested.


According to Faraday it is. That is not only a change in direction, but also a change in flux density within the core. The only thing that didn't change was the power output. I could have passed those magnets by the coil at 90 degrees at the same velocity they were traveling straight towards to coil, and they would produce a very measurable amount of power. Think about that one.

The square wave duty cycle was the same duration as the magnets returning and repolarizing the core. I could see the the square wave on the scope and measure it's induced power into the secondary. The magnets were doing the same thing magnetically to the core, as was the square wave, according to Faraday and academia, yet it was not producing any power in the secondary. This is the point! The mere fact that I could see a perfectly formed square wave on the scope, across the secondary, should raise all kinds of red flags about Faraday's observations in and of itself. That the reversal and subsequent substantial flux flow through the core induces nothing in the secondary is also damning. There was no "time" issue in this experiment, either with the magnets or the bandwidth of the coil.
As I mentioned above, I have done many of these types of experiments, this just being one example. I have done experiments with magnets in closed loops, double loops, double coils and a host of other configurations. I base my conclusions on what I have consistently found as the result of these extensive experiments.
Might I suggest doing some actual experiments with magnets and coils yourself instead of relying on archaic theories. Experimental results always hold far more weight than academic assumptions.

Cheers,

Ted
Irrelevant?
So, in your opinion, using a coil to move a magnet does not consume energy because the magnet can move itself back? Sorry, but you have made a gross error here. Not only does it consume energy, but in your application it consumes even more. Not only must it move the mass, but it also must push against the attraction of the magnet. So 100% of the potential energy stored at the 1" location is supplied by your input power.

The problem is, you think that energy is equal and it is not. That stored energy is only a minuscule fraction of what you are applying to the coil. Why to think it would be equal needs to be explained in full detail.

Passing a square wave through an transformer is a very simple thing when you understand the principles involved. Part of the problem with experimenters is that they tend to think in simple terms with the components they use. Thinking that a transformer is just two inductors wrapped around a core is a very simplistic thing and for many applications this simplistic approach is satisfactory. But when it becomes necessary to understanding the precise dynamics involved in passing energy from one winding to another, that is where experimenters often lose there solid footing on reality. Take for example the Pulse Transfomer. These transformers are made specifically for passing squared waveforms. If you remember from your studies that a square wave is the sum of all odd harmonics, you will understand quite readily why they pass through a transformer. Especially, when you consider that there is much more going on than just inductance. Notice in the link above that there is Cps. This is very high in bifilar wound coils and especially those made of square conductors that fill the voids normally produced by round conductors. This capacitance offsets the inductive delay and increases the rise time of the pulse. The Lp1 and Lp2 in the transformer play an important role in keeping the flat line up because they support the field when the change in current begins to stabilize across the top of the wave form. It is like dropping a magnet down a copper tube. The induction stops the magnet, which stops the induction which then moves again and the process repeats. The same is true with that inductance of Lp1 and Lp2. If you could view it with a fast enough microscopic oscilloscope, you would find small ripples across the top of your flat line where the current changes up and down holding the charge. And of course there are all the other factors there that play a part in the wave shape. Then, not even mentioned in that document, there are factors relating to variable permeability in a core material and effects of saturation, both of which can readily impact the wave shape passed through a transformer. For more on understanding the passing of square waves through a transformer see Pulse Transformers. So what do you think your coils would do with a duty cycle of 75% ON? Would it retain its square waveform?

You stated that there is no 'time issue' in your experiment. So have you completely dismissed the dv/dt equation then? What do you think would happen to your output if the on time of your wave form was increased to 2 hours? Would you still see a square wave on the output? Any one who has experimented with magnetics as much as we have will know right away that time is a BIG factor in induction. Just try moving your magnet across your coil real slow and see what the gives you even at 90°.

I have tried to help you understand why your tests failed to produce the effects you expected, and why you experienced something you did not expect (square wave transfer). It has little to do with the misapplication of Faraday's Law but more has to do with the specific dynamics of the system.

Try repeating the test with small mass magnets that you can oscillate at high frequencies and I guarantee you will be surprised at how different the exact same experiment becomes.

Also do my experiment with the magnet drop and prove to yourself that a change in flux density on the axial line of the core will in fact produce a voltage in your coil.

The reality is that the MEG and the FLYNN device will work as shown when properly configured. But as I have stated before, there are losses in the coils that work against any OU gain. There is absolutely no difference between the flux of a PM and that of an EM in a core. They are both identical at full potential. Where the two differ is in the building of the flux. The EM starts at zero, and builds the flux to full potential. The PM is always at full potential. What the MEG and FLYNN device do is provide a way of using the PM full potential to gradually build a flux change in one of the core legs while reducing the potential in the other thus effecting a flux density change in those respective legs using the 'always on' potential of the magnets. This effect is supported by simulations as well.

If you wish to experiment with this device I would like to make the following suggestion. Instead of magnets, use DC solenoids. You can then vary the PM flux by using a rheostat on the DC coils and tune in the best flux ratio for your core that you are experimenting with. Once you find the best value with your DC tuning, use a Gauss meter to measure the value in the solenoid coil and select magnets that match this value. Also, as I have stated before, seek out high permeability core material of a wide enough path to accommodate the flux of 3 sources; each magnet and the switching flux. I think the most common mistake made in this regard is a a bottleneck in the core material at the output transformers that results in pushing the flux outside of the material where it end-runs the entire winding through an air path.

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
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 02:59 AM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
I tell you what Harv, why don't you build a MEG, or a Flynn device, and be the first one to get it to produce all that extra energy your theories guarantee it will. That way we can all follow along as you show us stupid tinkerers how it's really done.

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 05:59 AM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
Hi TED

You are a true champion, and I must add, probably one of the few who is in the thick of things actually taking many of these designs and seeing if they are workable, unlike the thousands of armchair critics who voice there 2 cents worth adding nothing but hot air.

There are 2 types of people in the world, doers and talkers, the world is full of talkers, thats why there is global warming...too much hot air from all their %#$&.

I must commend you as a doer, the world needs more like you.

My electronically challenged disposition has never stopped me from attempting to build some of the more credible proposals out there, but isn't it always the same, that the inventor always leaves out a few critical aspects that never allows anyone to be able to move past it, so instead of hope leaping on the horizon, we crawl back into our hole of disillusionment mumbling that "free energy" is just another myth...however for some ridiculous reason, holding onto hope that there may be a decent human being left on this planet that honestly and truly wishes to share his knowledge and make life better for billions who suffer under the strain of exorbitant energy costs.

If I have to read another article about phone taps and men in black cars visiting them because of what they know...what utter garbage.

Someone with a credible background who is of good standing should start a thread about all the BS energy machines out there and give good valid reason why they are useless, and perhaps one that provides units that are definitely worth looking into with the excitement and vigor they deserve.
Thanks for the kind words Doc, I appreciate it.
You're right, there are a lot of machines that aren't worth spit. Nevertheless, there are still some gems from time to time.
The only way I figured out what worked from what didn't was through building and testing. I also stopped jumping from one device to another and decided to concentrate on one type of machine. That helped a lot.
Trust your gut and don't let yourself get lost in doubt. Don't listen to all the noise here either.

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 08:01 AM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,674
Hi folks, Hi Ted. Hey i was just thinking and I may be misunderstanding the interaction between the primary drive coil and the secondary in your bifilar example, however do you think the primary still has the same counter emf induced action occurring when the magnets are repelled away. It seems like it would still be there , but maybe not, in view of your observations. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. By the way, good work.
peace love light
Tyson
Oh ya, and if its not there, then whats the whole deal with the attraction motor thread, this would do the job.
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
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 08:07 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Ewert View Post
I tell you what Harv, why don't you build a MEG, or a Flynn device, and be the first one to get it to produce all that extra energy your theories guarantee it will. That way we can all follow along as you show us stupid tinkerers how it's really done.

Ted
LOL

Actually, the classical laws involved (Faraday and by extension Maxwell) tell us just the opposite, that NO OU is possible because (as I have stated repeatedly here) there are losses in those four coils and the conservation of energy demands that no gain be produced unless at the expense of another energy source - something has to pay for it.

Now what exactly do you mean when you say "your theories" ?

Honestly, unless you've read something of mine from some other location, or under one of my other pseudo-names (like Food4Thot) in some blogspot somewhere , I doubt that you have any idea what my theories are.

Now Flynn and Bearden, they have theories and whether or not they work is yet to be proven - but from what I can see no person alive has yet come even remotely close to disproving their theories While several persons have given good evidence in support of their theories.

Magluvin for instance with his Orbonbon has demonstrated successful flux path switching as has J. L. Naudine with his 2SGen. These forms are each different than the MEG or FLYNN's specific geometry, but the underlying principles are the same and are shown to work - contrary to your experiments. What shall I believe, the experiments of one man, or two men?

As a fellow Experimenter, I find your comments somewhat strange. You come into the thread and tell us not to build this because in your opinion it does not work and you base your opinion on your own empirical evidence. But when I show where your experiments were flawed, which I see as constructive, you take a stance with me that is derogatory.

You make the statement that according to Faraday's Law we should be rolling in OU - I have no clue how or why you arrive at that conclusion. In all my years (over 40) in the electronics field I have never seen anything from his laws that would indicate we could get OU from an electromagnetic system. But, as always I am eager to learn new things - so please show us how you get that from his equations.

I have seen throughout the internet people performing tests and drawing conclusions based on those tests without properly ensuring that the test is a falsification test. Some have gone so far as to apply inductive reasoning and imagine in their minds somehow, that this qualifies as conclusive logic to substantiate their endeavors. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Real conclusions must be based on facts with no other possible explanation. As long as there are other possible explanations, a matter is not proven. Just because I have not seen a rock from Pluto, shall I conclude that Pluto has no rocks? Or, if I state that the side of the Moon that faces away from the Earth is missing and I do 100 tests looking through a telescope to prove it, can I say it is proven?

You think you have proven that the MEG and FLYNN's configuration don't work - but all you really have proven is that your tests failed to produce the desired outcome - in fact, your tests have very little to do with those two devices.

From what I understand, the MEG involves some sort of re-gauging, I haven't looked that deeply into it, but I did have a IEEE magnetics expert look at the patents and he said it was completely viable but extremely difficult to balance and implement.

I have looked at the Flynn configuration and as I said, it does have merit because nearly 100% of the flux can be moved between each outer leg giving, as I have stated, up to 1.2T of flux density change in each leg alternately. The two areas I see as potential pitfalls with that configuration is the winding losses and the demagnetization of the PM when the input windings are in opposition to them. Even though the flux has an alternate path, there is a demagnetizing potential across the PM.

My purpose of posting in this thread is to help others work toward succeeding if they choose to experiment with it. I saw your post as one telling them not to experiment with it and then when I evaluated your reasons I found them wanting and so I shared my findings. Whether others accept the findings or not does not really matter to me, but I know it will help them if they want to succeed at this particular endeavor. They can do the tests I have outlined and prove to themselves that I have been truthful with the facts.

BTW, I did look at your motor over on the other forum - I think you'll find that your torque curves will increase dramatically if you apply the motive forces tangentially rather than in your current configuration. But I must say you have done some good work there on flux path switching

Cheers,

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
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 09:57 AM
Joit Joit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
In all my years (over 40) in the electronics field I have never seen anything from his laws that would indicate we could get OU from an electromagnetic system.
Lol. I think if you had do, we would not need to tinker around here.
But there are still a lot op Gaps at the Theorie and pratices what you do at Electronic,
and after the main Experiments, what you 'can' do,
its mostly that they are avoiding the Paradoxon, to surely get no OU.
Therefor, we have to start at Zero again.

Back to the Topic, this Guy' Guru4you' in that Video more looks like as if he wanna fool Peoples
or another Attempt to proove, it dont works,
when he promise, this is how it works, and Peoples put effort in, to see, that it Dont.
He should pick a serious and normal Name, when he has good Intentions, but doesnt seems like he has them,
and show some practical Tests, not just a Pice of Paper, where something is scrawled on it.
Plus, he sounds like a German, and a smartass, and i know enough of them,
there is nothing behind.

For redirecting the Flux, you can do a simple Test, as i wrote in another Thread.
Take 3 Magnets with the poles face eachother, that they repell eachother.
take one at the left hand, one at the right hand, the third, place infront of you.
Now hold the 2 magnets left and right from the 3rd, and move them closer together as if you clap.
The 3rd in front of you (repel mode) will at a certain point move away.
That is with 2 Magnets earlier, as if you use only one Magnet to repel the other.
But you will see, it is at very close Distance, and it is not much, what the (ie North) Pole will be redirected.

Now when you redirect it as like in this Device above in the Vid, you will have,
as Ted mentioned, not much different Potential, just one Pole what runs in an other Direction.
Then you need to adjust the Coils at the Magnets, that they even can redirect it,
and not, that the Magnets are to Strong, that you cant with a weak coil,
or, you got a to big Coil, and only fire it trough the Body,
but the Flux from the Magnets is only pushed back.
Another Aspect is, your Core will lock like the PHM from E.L does, and provide a permanent Flux path,
then you would need to break the circle once,
that you can have a new Zero Potential, what you can saturate again,
that you have Potential.

The Flynn Device is good for, when you want use this PM Field,
when you want to push a Rotor or something,
where you have mechanical Work, but not for a inductive System.
Yawning, I really hate such 'Guru4you'-Guys.
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
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:07 AM
Joit Joit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,930
And btw, i did once a quick and dirty Setup like this before a while,
as i found the Video, but it worked even more worse,
as if i use 4 Coils at a PHM and pulsed them in AC style, that the Flux change
at the Core from the Direction.
But with 'redirecting the Flux' it gave really bad Results with different Trials from Magnets and Coils, Pulsewidth and Duty Cycle.

There are better Experiments with a cutted Ringcore where a Magnet is placed into the Gap,
another coil, what creates the opposite Potential, and another Generator Coil wrapped around there.

_edit_ Forgot to mention, that This, what This Guy does, nothing has to do with CH. Flynns Work.
A shame, that he trows Dirt on his Name.

Last edited by Joit : 05-25-2010 at 10:10 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
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 02:09 PM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
Hi Harvey,
All I'm asking is that you put your money where your mouth is. With all that experience and training I'm sure you could knock out a Flynn device in a few hours.
If you get one to produce any extra power, I'll be the first one to eat crow and build the exact same device for extensive testing and verification.
I don't want to hear any more excuses either, Show us how it's done Harv!

Ted


BTW, I've found through experimentation that you get a lot less torque tangentially than you do linearly, but then I've only got thirty some odd years in the business so what do I know.
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
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 02:26 PM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWatcher View Post
Hi folks, Hi Ted. Hey i was just thinking and I may be misunderstanding the interaction between the primary drive coil and the secondary in your bifilar example, however do you think the primary still has the same counter emf induced action occurring when the magnets are repelled away. It seems like it would still be there , but maybe not, in view of your observations. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. By the way, good work.
peace love light
Thanks Tyson.
The secondary winding was included to record the electrical power induced into the windings from the core. It also acts as a transformer winding and will record the power induced into the core from the primary pulse.
This is so I could isolate the electrical effects of the magnets from the power pulse in the primary. I did two tests; one with the magnets being repelled and one with no magnets included. In both tests the only power induced into the secondary winding was from the power pulse. There was no difference in the waveform, voltage or current levels in either test. Therefore I concluded that the magnets produced no discernible electrical effects in this configuration.

Cheers,

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 03:39 PM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Ewert View Post
Hi Harvey,
All I'm asking is that you put your money where your mouth is. With all that experience and training I'm sure you could knock out a Flynn device in a few hours.
If you get one to produce any extra power, I'll be the first one to eat crow and build the exact same device for extensive testing and verification.
I don't want to hear any more excuses either, Show us how it's done Harv!

Ted


BTW, I've found through experimentation that you get a lot less torque tangentially than you do linearly, but then I've only got thirty some odd years in the business so what do I know.
Well I can see that you can lead a horse to water and then he wants you to drink it for him. Sheesh, try to help a guy figure out why his stuff keeps failing and this is the way he treats you.

I'll bet you don't use linear pressure on your wrench when you tighten your bolts do you? Here are some back to basics in understanding torque for you. The same principles that apply to tightening bolts apply to motor torque. If you have found something different by your experiments I guarantee you that your doing something wrong and with 30 years experience?

Well, I'll be helping those that actually want to succeed - when you realize I am correct on these matters (if you ever realize the truth) you can apologize for the way you have treated me in this thread. I won't be holding my breath though.

Now here is a guy that does experiments that work:
YouTube - Magluvin's Channel

Maybe we should be asking him what works and what doesn't instead.




ETA: For those readers that would like to go straight to the source on the FLYNN product line:
PPMT Products

A description from the Inventor as to how it REALLY works:
PPMT Technology

And a way to contact them if you have questions:
Flynn Research Contact Information

Last edited by Harvey : 05-25-2010 at 03:56 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
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 03:54 PM
Doc Doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
The spirit of this thread is livening up.

The debate continues between the doers and the talkers.
Who would you believe, a conversation between two theorists or between two doers who actually debate their measuring methodology.

I for one have go to the point where unless you have actually built the experiment and deduced for yourself the merits or not, then your theories are actually a waste of time... and your hot air is only contributing to global warming.

My sentiment is: Only when you built a device, should you then have the privilege to voice your opinion.
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
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 04:06 PM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
The spirit of this thread is livening up.

The debate continues between the doers and the talkers.
Who would you believe, a conversation between two theorists or between two doers who actually debate their measuring methodology.

I for one have go to the point where unless you have actually built the experiment and deduced for yourself the merits or not, then your theories are actually a waste of time... and your hot air is only contributing to global warming.

My sentiment is: Only when you built a device, should you then have the privilege to voice your opinion.
I can take a hint. This is your thread Doc and as far as I can see its dead now.

Cheers.
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
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 04:41 PM
Ted Ewert Ted Ewert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 572
I figured you'd wimp out Harvey because you're all talk. You think you're right because some textbook somewhere says so. Then you put on this condescending attitude like we're all a bunch of idiots if we don't line up in lock step behind your blinding intellect.
I'll suffer an attitude from guys like Dollard, because he's done the work, but not from you. If you want any respect around here you'll have to earn it, just like the rest of us.

Ted
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
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 05:39 PM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Ewert View Post
I figured you'd wimp out Harvey because you're all talk. You think you're right because some textbook somewhere says so. Then you put on this condescending attitude like we're all a bunch of idiots if we don't line up in lock step behind your blinding intellect.
I'll suffer an attitude from guys like Dollard, because he's done the work, but not from you. If you want any respect around here you'll have to earn it, just like the rest of us.

Ted
Quite frankly I'm well respected by persons that matter most and I could care less whether you respect me or not. But just to shut you up, here is an example of my work:
AEI Intelligent Technologies AEI-CP1200TX CompactPCI cPCI Dual 2 Port Gigabit Ethernet NIC Adapter

I did the entire design, multilevel board layout, prototype builds and all the rest of the hands on work required to bring that product to market. I have my company logo embedded in the power planes of those boards so you can hold it up to the light and see that it is my design. You'll note that it is a Compact PCI chassis design which conforms to IEEE standards. Not only is my work respected, but the product commands a good price even on today's market years later. Call the company and see what the price is for working product that is derived from my years of work and knowledge.

From what I can see so far, that is a difference between you and I. When I build something, I build it to work and I don't waste my time on things I know will not work. But I do spend time on things that 'may' work.

As far as I know, Flynn has not claimed any OU from his designs. Neither did Faraday - but De Palma did claim OU and Dollard and Lindemann were there with him at that time. Bruce is no longer with us, But Dollard is still around on this forum as is Lindemann.

So if you don't want to accept the truth from me, go ask someone else. They will tell you the same things I have - at least I know anyone who has done the work will - and I have definitely done the work.

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
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Doc Doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
I can take a hint. This is your thread Doc and as far as I can see its dead now.

Cheers.
That may be so, but at least it achieved its objective.
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
Reply With Quote
Reply



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 02:45 PM.


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