Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 897352
• Total Topics: 15812
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 4
• Guests: 12
• Total: 16

### Author Topic: Splitting the electron stream  (Read 75514 times)

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2010, 11:15:29 AM »
Henry has units Ohm*s. Therefore, you divide the inductance in henries by the resistance in ohms and you get the time constant, in units of seconds. That works just fine.

What you are doing is saying that 24 mH is special because if you divide it by 1.094 MHz*m, you get approximately 100*(1-2/e), a dimensionless constant. That doesn't work at all. What if you decided to use cgs units?!

Here is an analogy: I notice that my hand is 3*pi inches long. EUREKA! The secret to the universe is revealed in my hand! But only because I'm using English units... so it doesn't make sense. If I used metric units, the whole thing falls apart.

In science, it doesn't matter what units you use, but they must AGREE in your equations...

That's nice, but then why doesn't your equation take these into account? It shouldn't work if it ignores these factors.

Your analogy fails because you introduced a length or some other dimension based on a particular unit of measurement.  Of course the result will be different if you change to a different unit of measurement without a conversion between the two. Do you see how silly your analogy really is?  Here's my analogy. I noticed that my hand is 3% * pi inches long. Eureka!  The secret to the universe is revealed in my hand!  This works, and it's not due to the English units, metric units, or any other unit of measurement, but it does work because I used a percentage instead.  So it makes total sense.

e = Euler's number
1/e = 0.367879441  <----I will convert this to a percentage below.
1 - 1/e = 0.632120559  <----I will convert this to a percentage below.
1 - 2/e = 0.264241117657115356808952459677 or 26.4241117% is the difference between (1 - 1/e and 1/e) if allowed to round up  <---- Don't you find this interesting?  You should, because the additional digits in precision of 1 - 2/e leads to something else interesting.

Converting the above numbers to a percentage, we get 63.2120559% - 36.7879441% = 26.4241118% / 1.094 = 24.153667093235831809872029250457%  <----This is exactly what I have done in my calculations, and this method can work just like it did with the modified analogy of the hand and universe by using a percentage.  Leaving the % sign out doesn't change the fact that it can work.  I converted the 1/e and 1 - 1/e into a percentage, because the voltage will fall at 36.7879441% while the current rises 63.2120559% in a time constant.  Again, this makes total sense.  There is more than one way to do something, and it doesn't neccessarily have to be done in the only way you may be aware of.

GB
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 10:18:12 PM by gravityblock »

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2010, 11:15:29 AM »

#### juice

• Newbie
• Posts: 24
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2010, 03:44:43 PM »
Here's my analogy. I noticed that my hand is 3% * pi inches long. Eureka!

So you're telling me the universe calculates in inches? How convenient.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2010, 04:15:42 PM »
So you're telling me the universe calculates in inches? How convenient.

No, that's not what I'm telling you.  That is only what your silly little analogy is telling you.  Remember, I used the same figures you gave to me in your analogy.  If you gave me the wrong numbers or the incorrect data, then it's not my fault.  IMO, here's how the universe calculates.  The universe is an oscillating charge superimposed on an infinite point, constantly causing a deformation of space, continually exerting its influence on the un manifest, and automatically creating energy, and in consequence, matter. If this did not exist, nothing whatsoever would exist. This continual creation of energy in the Universe gives rise to an internal pressure in the nebulae which can be seen in the phenomenon known as "the flight of the nebulae."  As a result of this internal pressure they move away from one another.

You may raise the objection that this pressure is also applied in the direction of flight so that the internal pressure coupled with the external one would make them stable and they would not move apart, which would cause their mass to condense. My answer to this would be that energy created outside a galaxy tends to be drawn into the galaxy, condensing itself into material form. Thus we have an internal pressure coupled with an external decompression.

The flight of the nebulae prevents condensation taking place for three reasons: 1) This movement causes the interior pressure to disappear. However, nebulae appear to maintain an acceleration caused by an internal pressure within the Universe.  (2) As the nebulae move apart, that space which had been transformed into matter endeavours to return to its former state of primordial space in accordance with the law of rotation of masses in a magnetic field. This reconstitutes the energy that had been used for condensation of the matter, turning it into light, whose wave energy goes on decreasing until the moment of entropy is reached. This is what takes place on the Sun. Leaving aside the reaction that they bring about on the planets, the Sun's discharges into space are, in a sense, matter returning to its original state of primordial space.  (3) Light repels magnetic fields. Light from a myriad of suns in the various galaxies produces a very great force of repulsion on all the nebulae, and under this pressure they move away from one another.

In the first instance the oscillating charge superimposed on an infinite point supplied the power that brings about the deformation of space and the Sun, by an opposite process, turns it back into energy, thus re-establishing the balance.  That is why neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.  This transition between primordial space and deformed space occurs within the "quantum transitional speed of 1.094 megahertz m/s".  If you conceive a limit, then what is beyond that limit?  Don't limit yourself in your thinking.

GB

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2010, 04:15:42 PM »

#### juice

• Newbie
• Posts: 24
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2010, 09:46:08 PM »
That was a nice sermon, and I agree with much of the character of what you said. I even like your interpretation of the orbo.

But your "equation" still has nothing to do with Znidarsic's constant.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2010, 11:47:46 PM »

V = 12
R = 961
I = 0.01248
L = 0.961 - 1.0H
t = 0.001 - 0.00104

Fast rise time. The inductance is the inverse of the resistance. TC will remain relatively constant throughout all 5 TC's. Total rise time for current is ~ 0.005 to reach the maximum current of 0.01248 allowed by resistance. Maximum current is reached at the highest point in inductance. At higher RPM's, the Maximum current is reached in less time due to the inductance varying at the rate of the RPM, thus the system is more efficient at higher RPM. Basicly the total time for the current to reach it's maximum value allowed by the resistance will occur faster than the TC at higher RPM's, thus a "time variant field".  This is where the gain is coming from.  I think this is it!

GB

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2010, 11:47:46 PM »

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2010, 12:59:23 AM »
The embarrassing problem is, of course, that no gain has been demonstrated.
Not by Steorn nor by anyone else working on this problem.

However, the scope traces which Sean McCarthy and Steorn claim to be illustrating "gain" have been demonstrated.

Something else to think about is that the equation you are using doesn't apply to dynamically changing inductances.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2010, 01:16:08 AM »
Something else to think about is that the equation you are using doesn't apply to dynamically changing inductances.

I agree, but not in this case.  Compare the first TC to the fifth TC and you will see the TC's are relativley constant, thus your argument is based on false premesis.  The change in inductance is varying at the rate of the RPM.  At higher RPM's, the changes in inductance will vary at a faster rate, and since the TC is based on L/R and L is increasing which means "t" is decreasing at a faster rate proportional to the RPM.  At a minimum RPM, the current will reach it's maximum current allowed by the resistor in less time than the ~0.005 of the total of 5 TC's.  Any further increases in RPM is a gain in energy proportional to the increase above this minimal RPM, which occurs at a low RPM.  This is a "time varying field" effect and is responsible for the gain in energy.

[Edit:]  Try to wrap your mind around what I'm doing below.  Then it will become clear to you.

Assuming the inductance is increasing 39mH from 0.961mH to 1.000H according to a RPM at a rate 5 times faster than the TC, then we have the below.

V = 12
R = 961
I = 0.01248
L = 0.961 - 1.0H
TC = 0.001 - 0.001162

V / L = Constant rate of change of current
12/ 0.961 = 12.486 in 0.001 seconds
4.44 / 1.00H = 4.44 in 0.001040 seconds. Rate of change of current is equal to the voltage. 0 inductance gain. Break even point!
1.6248 / 1.039 = 1.5638 in 0.001081 seconds. Inductance gain at this point! Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.601176 / 1.078 = 0.55767 in 0.001121 seconds. Another gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.22243512 / 1.117 = 0.199136 in 0.001162 seconds. Another gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!

Inductance gain of 117mH after 5 time constants.

GB
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 05:54:53 AM by gravityblock »

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2010, 01:16:08 AM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2010, 03:59:50 AM »
V = 12
R = 961
I = 0.01248
L = 0.961 - 1.0H
TC = 0.001 - 0.00104

Assuming the inductance is increasing 7.8mH according to a RPM equal to the TC, then we have the below.

V / L = Constant rate of change of current
12 / 0.961 = 12.486 in 0.001 seconds
4.44 / 0.968 = 4.586 in 0.001007 seconds
1.6248 / 0.9758 = 1.665 in 0.001015 seconds
0.601176 / 0.9836 = 0.611 in 0.001023 seconds
0.22243512 / 0.9914 = 0.224364 in 0.001031 seconds. Rate of change of current almost equals voltage, thus resistance losses.

Assuming the inductance is increasing 23.4mH according to a RPM at a rate 3 times faster than the TC, then we have the below.

V / L = Constant rate of change of current
12/ 0.961 = 12.486 in 0.001 seconds
4.44 / 0.9844 = 4.510 in 0.001024 seconds
1.6248 / 1.0074 = 1.612 in 0.001048 seconds.  Inductance gain at this point!  Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.601176 / 1.0304 = 0.58343 in 0.001072 seconds.  Gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.22243512 / 1.0534 = 0.21115 in 0.001096 seconds. Gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!

Energy Gain through "time frame" manipulation!

GB
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 04:31:13 AM by gravityblock »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2010, 07:33:24 AM »
@TinselKoala:

Why don't you use the correct formula for a dynamically changing inductance and prove me wrong?

Inductance at TDC = 0.961mH.  Maximum inductance of coil = 1.0H
Assuming the inductance is increasing 39mH from 0.961mH to 1.000H at a RPM that has a rate 5 times faster than "t", compute the following:

V = 12
R = 961
I = 0.01248
L = 0.961 - 1.0H

After you compute the calculations, I'll almost bet they're in close agreement with my calculations.

GB

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2010, 07:33:24 AM »

#### spinn_MP

• Full Member
• Posts: 224
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2010, 01:14:39 PM »
"Steorn's effect" successfully reversed Engineered?

Lol!

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2010, 04:50:13 PM »
"Steorn's effect" successfully reversed Engineered?

Lol!

Really, the math isn't even needed to understand this. If the RPM is changing the inductance at a rate faster than the TC's, then there is a gain. It's that simple.  The resistance must be the inverse of the inductance before this can happen.

Instead of Lol, why don't you try to understand the concept and method I'm describing first.

GB

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2010, 04:50:13 PM »

#### juice

• Newbie
• Posts: 24
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2010, 08:30:26 PM »
The concept of inductance is a simplification based on the assumption that the rate of change of the current is linearly proportional to the voltage. This is a major assumption, and it is NOT VALID for most electrical systems, including, for example, transformers. Are transformers overunity? No. You prove nothing, with your equations or without.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2010, 01:18:33 AM »
The concept of inductance is a simplification based on the assumption that the rate of change of the current is linearly proportional to the voltage. This is a major assumption, and it is NOT VALID for most electrical systems, including, for example, transformers. Are transformers overunity? No. You prove nothing, with your equations or without.

I'm using L/R for the time constant.  I'm also using the fact that it takes 5 time constants for the current to reach it's maximum value allowed by the resistance.  From this, you can compute the voltage and current values for each of the 5 time constants.  The difference between the total inductance of the coil and the inductance at TDC is 39mH in my example.  Dividing 39mH by 5, then there is 7.8mH.  I divide by 5 because there is 5 time contants.  This means there will be a 7.8mH change in inductance during each of the time constants. If the inductance change is at the same rate as the time contants, then there is no inductance gain.  If the inductance is changing more than 7.8mH during a time constant, then there is an inductance gain.

I'm intergrating the inductance changes over 5 time constants.  This will give the correct end results.  Inductance is changing at a rate proportional to the RPM.  I'm not using the RPM value, but instead using values based on the inductance changing at a rate 2, 3, 4, or 5 times faster than the time constants.  There is nothing wrong with this method.

GB

#### FatBird

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1179
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2010, 01:25:36 AM »
Can somebody post a schematic?

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: Splitting the electron stream
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2010, 01:29:11 AM »
Can somebody post a schematic?

I'll be working on a spreadsheet in the next few hours so we can play with the numbers and for it to be in a format that is easier to understand and read.

GB