Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => The theory of energy streams => Topic started by: gravityblock on November 30, 2010, 06:08:47 AM

Title: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on November 30, 2010, 06:08:47 AM
Here's the link, http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?t=6872

Please feel free to discuss it here also.

Thanks,

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: void109 on November 30, 2010, 04:17:37 PM
Quote from: Gravityblock
In short, the orbo effect is a convergence or Impedance Match of the L/R Time Constant between the current and the voltage.

The inductance of the coil is 961mH at the beginning of the pulse in the Steorn demo talks. At the end of the pulse, the inductance of the coil is 984mH. The difference in inductance between the start and end of the pulse is 23mH. This difference of 23mH divided by 0.63 is 36.5. Let's round 36.5 up to 37. Watch the first minute of this Steorn video to see what I'm talking about.

Let me explain the significance of 23mH, 0.63 and 37. The L/R TIME CONSTANT determines the time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value. One L/R time constant is the time required for the current in an inductor to increase to 63 percent (actually 63.2 percent or 0.632) of the maximum current (Voltage source divided by Resistance), thus the reason for dividing 23mH by 0.63. Each time constant is equal to the time required for the current to increase by 63.2 percent of the difference in value between the current flowing in the inductor and the maximum current. Maximum current flows in the inductor after five L/R time constants are completed.

What do you think happens to the voltage in the inductor? The voltage in the inductor will fall approximately 37% of the initial voltage in a time equal to the TIME CONSTANT, thus the reason why 23mH divided by 0.63 equals 37. The voltage will fall another 37% for the next time constant, and so on.

What is the importance in the 23mH? It's the number which relates both the L/R time constant of the voltage and current for an impedance match between them, and may also be the pulse width in degrees. This means when the current rises 100% of its maximum current in the first time constant, the voltage will not drop in a time equal to the time constant. The current will reach 100% of its maximum current in the first time constant, because there is a 100% transfer of energy in the first pass (the complete transfer of energy doesn't occur in 5 L/R time constants, but happens in 1 L/R time constant when there is an impedance match) There is no BEMF or CEMF in this system, not even when building the magnetic field in the coil. When there is an impedance match, then there is a 100% energy transfer in 1 L/R time constant.

I'm not a member of the SKDB or associated with Steorn in any way. I found a correlation between the L/R TIME CONSTANT and A CONVERGENCE OF THE MOTION CONSTANTS in the publication on the "Quantization of Energy" by Frank Znidarsic on page 9 of 12. All credits go to Frank Znidarsic for his research on the quantum transitional speed, so I could make this connection!

Thanks GB!  I have a question about why you chose to divide the inductance delta between the two positions or states (23mH) by the time constant percentage (63.2%).  I understand that by doing so you can do some maths to wind up landing on FZ's quantum transition speed.  But is that just a fun coincidence or is there a fundamental reason why you chose to do so?  You said:

Quote from: Gravityblock
The voltage in the inductor will fall approximately 37% of the initial voltage in a time equal to the TIME CONSTANT, thus the reason why 23mH divided by 0.63 equals 37

As I understand it (just read about it now, so forgive obvious mistakes), 63.2% is the value used to determine the L/R time constant.  I dont intuitively understand how that percentage relates to the inductance delta, and why you would divide it as you have done.  Can you help me understand the reason?

Quick note to others on 'e' from what I've read.

e = Euler's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant))
1/e = 0.367879441
1 - 1/e = 0.632120559

Thanks much!    I've been enjoying seattle4truth's (http://www.youtube.com/user/seattle4truth) youtube videos on Frank Znidarsics work, waiting for the next episode.  Also trying to work through the math on my own, I'm a bit rusty :)
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: void109 on November 30, 2010, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: Gravityblock
The L/R TIME CONSTANT determines the time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value. One L/R time constant is the time required for the current in an inductor to increase to 63 percent (actually 63.2 percent or 0.632) of the maximum current (Voltage source divided by Resistance), thus the reason for dividing 23mH by 0.63.

I think this needs to be corrected?

The L/R TIME CONSTANT is determined by the amount of time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value (63.2% of maximum current).

The way you wrote it sounds like the L/R TC is what determines the time required, but from what I read, the time required IS the constant, which you derive from L, R and 63.2% (1-1/e). 

This might just be semantics, but that was a confusing point for me when trying to work through what you posted :)
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on November 30, 2010, 07:20:19 PM
I think this needs to be corrected?

The L/R TIME CONSTANT is determined by the amount of time required for current in an inductor to reach a specific value (63.2% of maximum current).

The way you wrote it sounds like the L/R TC is what determines the time required, but from what I read, the time required IS the constant, which you derive from L, R and 63.2% (1-1/e). 

This might just be semantics, but that was a confusing point for me when trying to work through what you posted :)

Study the graph in Figure (1)1. - L/R time constant found on this page,  http://www.sayedsaad.com/fundmental/9_inductance%20of%20a%20coil.%20.htm , along with the formula TC in seconds = L / R, while remembering there are 5 L/R TC required for the current to rise to it's maximum current (Vs/R).  This means it takes 5 L/R TC to transfer 100% of the total energy due to 37% of the energy being reflected back in each of the 5 L/R TC.  When 100% of the total energy is transferred in 1 L/R TC, then there is no energy to be reflected back to work against the applied voltage, thus no BEMF.  I Hope this helps.  I'm not the best at putting my thoughts into words, sorry.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: void109 on November 30, 2010, 08:56:29 PM
I appreciate your effort to explain your thoughts!

You are referring to 100% energy transfer during 1 L/T TC.  Was there evidence of this behavior in Steorn's demonstrations or is this your speculation as to what is occurring?

I think I saw in S4T's videos that when the mechanical resonant frequency of the nuclei in an atom matches the speed of light in the material that energy transfer would be 100% and instantaneous.  Did I understand that correctly?  That may be why I'm hanging up on this, because instant is ∞ greater than Ï„.

I have to watch the videos a second and third time, picking them apart, and working through the math to internalize it.  Right now I just have a sense of what Frank's work means and implies, I need to understand.  I should just duck into a hole for a few weeks until I do.  I don't want to derail what you're doing with inappropriate questions. :)

Still learning!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on November 30, 2010, 10:20:02 PM
I appreciate your effort to explain your thoughts!

You are referring to 100% energy transfer during 1 L/T TC.  Was there evidence of this behavior in Steorn's demonstrations or is this your speculation as to what is occurring?

I think I saw in S4T's videos that when the mechanical resonant frequency of the nuclei in an atom matches the speed of light in the material that energy transfer would be 100% and instantaneous.  Did I understand that correctly?  That may be why I'm hanging up on this, because instant is ∞ greater than Ï„.

I have to watch the videos a second and third time, picking them apart, and working through the math to internalize it.  Right now I just have a sense of what Frank's work means and implies, I need to understand.  I should just duck into a hole for a few weeks until I do.  I don't want to derail what you're doing with inappropriate questions. :)

Still learning!

Yes, there is evidence of the voltage/current rising in the e-Orbo demonstrations together almost instantaneously, and the rise time in the current was the same for the voltage.  The voltage didn't lag the current, and the current didn't lag the voltage.  If you're transferring energy at a rate of 1,094,000 m/s over a very tiny distance, then the transfer of energy is nearly instantaneous.  The energy will be transfered at the rate of the TC, assuming the TC is the same for both the voltage and current.  When the Voltage/Current =  the same TC, then the speed of the light in the electronic structure will match the speed of the mechanical waves in the nucleur structure of the atoms, which allows energy to be transferred in one TC almost instantaneously.  You're on the right track.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: lumen on December 01, 2010, 05:26:42 AM
I could be missing something here, but isn't this just another way of saying the same thing?
Say a 15 Henry coil is passing a magnet and the inductance drops to 1 Henry. Then a current is applied that energizes the coil to 100%, going through all the 5 t/c steps.  Then as the magnet moves away, the inductance increases back to 15 Henry and all this happens in less than 1 t/c of the 15 Henry coil, which is much longer than all 5 t/c steps of the 1 Henry coil.
There is also much less BEMF in the 1 Henry coil than even the 1 t/c of the 15 Henry coil.
Is this not the same thing?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: juice on December 01, 2010, 07:32:33 PM
The number 1.094 isn't dimensionless. It's MHz-m.

To subtract it from inverse Henries has no meaning. The result of the calculation isn't even close to exact anyway. I know you want to unify the ideas you like, but it just doesn't work out like this.

This isn't science, it's numerology.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 01, 2010, 11:45:36 PM
The number 1.094 isn't dimensionless. It's MHz-m.

To subtract it from inverse Henries has no meaning
. The result of the calculation isn't even close to exact anyway. I know you want to unify the ideas you like, but it just doesn't work out like this.

This isn't science, it's numerology.

Below is a quote from ashtweth, who has acquired a License from Steorn, who is privileged to information that is not known to the public.

Quote from: ashtweth;114072
Yes we are still here and working on it, when we get results we will post them:) , we have not been abducted by aliens, killed by MIB's or are wasting time making stupid posts like the mole trap FREAKS or Paul lowerence :)

We have re wound our coils to get the inductance needed for the E orbo effect, , time variant magnetic interactions have come a long way with Steorn, i  say dont  wait for our results with the E-orbo, i have seen enough from our Trustee to indicate their effect is REAL (solid state video). So go for it:thumbsup: .

Our SS board has already been ordered and will be here soon, we spin our E-orbo this weekend, you need a certain mH and voltage current to get the orbo effect happening,it takes time.. Naudin and no one on the net has this needed value, its a specific  number, i cant say any more. Or my ass gets beat.

The reason for us taking so long was to learn this mH and voltage current to get the time variant field happening.  The solid state board rectifies these learning curves. so when its here (we already ordered it) it will  be instant, analog Dc in and measured through an analog meter into a resistive load (heat) .  We are not giving up on LEARNING the E- orb , no way

Ill post when we have results my friend be patient cheers:
we do not sleep or waste time, you can ask the members of Steorn

Ash

As you can see, a certain inductance is needed along with the voltage and current to get the orbo effect happening.  No one on the net has this needed value or specific number.  I can tell you right now, that the inductance, voltage, and current are all related to a specific number.  This is why there has been no successful replication of the e-Orbo or ssOrbo from the Open Source Community. 

Also, if you need a time variant field to get the effect, don't you think a good place to look for this is with the time constants of the voltage and current?  The 63 and 37 are related to the time constants and so is the inductance and resistance.... and it was the difference of these two values divided by 1.094 which gave a result of 24.153667093235831809872029250457, and it just happens that the 24.1536...... is nearly the same difference between the inductance at the beginning of the pulse and the inductance at the end of the pulse during one of Steorn's demonstration talks.  It doesn't take a mathematician to realize the odds of this happening by chance are astronomical.  Having said this, the difference in inductance or the inductance change of 24.1536... could be responsible for a time variant field when, and only when, all of the other parameters are correct, such as voltage, current, and inductance.  Now, take this quick summary of what I have done, then compare it to what ashtweth said in the above quote. 

I never subtracted the 1.094 from the inverse of Henries.  Please show me where I did this in any of my posts.  What I did with the 1.094 is explained above.  I suggest you and everyone else to start crunching the numbers.  Also, please show me how the result of the calculation isn't even close to exact?  If you're referring to the 1.094 not being close to 1,094,000..... then we may only be talking about decimal points between unit conversions, etc.  Example:  0.985H = 985mH (the numbers themselves aren't equal, but when conversion is taken into account, then the result is the same.  Even if the result isn't the same due to not taking the conversion into account, the numbers themselves will be the same.  Example: .25 doesn't equal 25, but when 25 is a percent and taken into account, then the numbers themselves are equal and will return the same result.  Also, an unknown number(s) or other calculations could always move the decimal point of 1.094 to the right by six positions to get 1,094,000.  Example:  1.094 * 1,000,000 = 1,094,00.  I could go on and on.  The bottom line is your argument is baseless and has no meaning. Regardless, it results in a number which is nearly identical to what is found in the demo talks against extreme odds of this happening by chance.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: happyfunball on December 02, 2010, 12:06:11 AM
Fascinating, but it's four years and counting. When does 'Orbo' power anything in the real world? 100 years from today?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: utilitarian on December 02, 2010, 01:16:21 AM
Wait, I did not know the Orbo effect was ever successfully forward engineered.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 02, 2010, 02:00:03 AM
Wait, I did not know the Orbo effect was ever successfully forward engineered.

You have a good point, but please start another thread to discuss if the effect is real or not.  I'm trying to show in this thread how the effect is real, mathematically.

Thanks,

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: juice on December 02, 2010, 02:36:59 AM
Quote
63 - 37 = 26. It should be obvious where the 63 and 37 came from.

26 / 23mH = 1.130

1.130 - 1.094 = 0.036

63 and 37 are percentages. They have no units, same with 26.
Then you divide 26 by 23mH, giving 1.13 the units of inverse Henries (technically it's inverse millihenries, but as you mentioned, it's just a matter of decimal places and I don't really care about that)

The units of inverse Henry using the least derived units is:
meters^2 * kg / C^2

Fundamentally, your claim is that 1.13 is close to 1.094, so that is what is represented by dividing 26 by 23 mH. BUT 1.094 is a SPEED, and its basic units are: m / s

(again we can convert 1.094 MHz-m, so it would be 1094000 m/s, but I don't care about that)

So what you are doing by comparing a number with units of inverse henry (1.13 mH^-1) to speed (1.094E6 m/s) MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

You say that it's beyond chance to find numbers so close so it must have meaning, but you don't appreciate how remarkably easy it is to throw together some numbers algebraically and get a result within a few percent.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 02, 2010, 03:11:35 AM
63 and 37 are percentages. They have no units, same with 26.
Then you divide 26 by 23mH, giving 1.13 the units of inverse Henries (technically it's inverse millihenries, but as you mentioned, it's just a matter of decimal places and I don't really care about that)

The units of inverse Henry using the least derived units is:
meters^2 * kg / C^2

Fundamentally, your claim is that 1.13 is close to 1.094, so that is what is represented by dividing 26 by 23 mH. BUT 1.094 is a SPEED, and its basic units are: m / s

(again we can convert 1.094 MHz-m, so it would be 1094000 m/s, but I don't care about that)

So what you are doing by comparing a number with units of inverse henry (1.13 mH^-1) to speed (1.094E6 m/s) MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

You say that it's beyond chance to find numbers so close so it must have meaning, but you don't appreciate how remarkably easy it is to throw together some numbers algebraically and get a result within a few percent.

I said units, etc.  You conveniately overlooked "etc." with your unit argument.  In addition, 1% could refer to 1 unit, or 5% could refer to 5 units.  Your point is senseless from my perspective.  I even said 63 and 37 were approximate.  The exact values are below, based on Euler's constant. 

63.2120559 - 36.7879441 = 26.4241118

26.4241118 / 1.094 = 24.153667093235831809872029250457.  The 1.13 is now 1.094 by substituting the approximate values with the exact values, for a perfect match.  Anyways, the 1.13 was actually 1.13^-1 m/s and not 1.13mH^-1 as you stated.  So, the comparison was actually (1.13^-1 m/s) to speed (1.094E6 m/s).  You mistated the facts and used the approximate values instead of the exact values I later posted.  In the steorn demo, the difference in inductance was 985 - 961 = 24.  The 985 and 961 is ignoring any precision in decimal digits on the display because there was small fluctuations.  A closer look at the video, showed the inductance rose slightly above 985, so I substituted my previous number of 984 with 985, and this changed the 23 to a 24.  With these new numbers, the results are identical to each other when ignoring the decimal digits and are well within experimental error.  My calculations are much less than a few percent.  The calculations could almost be considered an exact match if the small fluctuations are taken into consideration.  The final result, was a comparison between my calculations of 24.153667093235831809872029250457 and the change in induction of 24.xxxx in the demo talks.

In regards to your henry to m/s B.S., there is a fatal flaw in your thought process which I'm going to take care of right now. The speed of the magnetic field propagating through a core material is relatively slow.  In Steorn's test with Nickel, the magnetic field propagated through the material in 100 m/s, if my memory serves me correctly.  What if the speed of the magnetic field in a material changes with an induction change (Steorn has done extensive studies on magnetic viscosity and it shouldn't be overlooked).  If this is the case, then your argument holds no weight once again, because inductance could be a factor in the speed of the magnetic field in a material, which relates to m/s. This would definitely correspond to a time varying field if the other parameters, such as voltage, current, and inductance had the correct values.  Even if this isn't the case, then maybe the inductance could be part of a function relating to the speed/time of something else.  You can divide the henry by the resistance in ohms, which are different units of measurment, to get the time constant, which is also a different unit of measurement. So, why can't you do henry to speed if there is a relationship between them?  We can see by the equation TC = L/R, that the inductance is related to time, so there's a strong possiblity that it could be related to speed or m/s also.  It should be obvious, if you don't know what the numbers represent or how they relate to each other, then it is foolish to assign it a unit of measurement or anything else. 

The fine structure constant is used all of the time, even though nobody knew how this number was calculated.  This number was only used because it gave the correct results, but nobody knew why.  It doesn't matter if you know why or not, if it gives the correct result all of the time, then that is what is important.  You can calculate the fine structure constant with 1.094 megahertz m/s. Science now knows the fine structure constant is related to the quantum transitional speed, and can now calculate the fine structure constant.  They no longer have to worry about why they're using the fine structure constant.


GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: juice on December 02, 2010, 07:48:26 AM
You can divide the henry by the resistance in ohms, which are different units of measurment, to get the time constant, which is also a different unit of measurement. So, why can't you do henry to speed if there is a relationship between them?

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...


Quote
inductance could be a factor in the speed of the magnetic field in a material, which relates to m/s. This would definitely correspond to a time varying field if the other parameters, such as voltage, current, and inductance had the correct values. Even if this isn't the case, then maybe the inductance could be part of a function relating to the speed/time of something else.

That's nice, but then why doesn't your equation take these into account? It shouldn't work if it ignores these factors.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: juice 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.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: juice 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.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 04, 2010, 11:47:46 PM
Here's something to think about.

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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: spinn_MP on December 05, 2010, 01:14:39 PM
"Steorn's effect" successfully reversed Engineered?

Lol!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: juice 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.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: FatBird on December 06, 2010, 01:25:36 AM
Can somebody post a schematic?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 06, 2010, 03:32:39 PM
Gravity Block,

You are obviously a pretty smart person but you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

The only math you need to understand is E=MC2.

You will find some shorted coils around magnets if I remember the latest orbo claim correctly. Those mystery magnets are doing compression which produces acceleration.

Had Einstein correct labeled his equation it would have been:

Mass To Atomic Energy Conversion = MC2

All free energy devices use mass as the fuel source and they all use acceleration to convert it into energy. There are lots of ways to produce the acceleration. Pulse compression just happens to be a simple one. See Thane Heins for a better example.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 06, 2010, 11:53:55 PM
Gravity Block,

You are obviously a pretty smart person but you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

The only math you need to understand is E=MC2.

You will find some shorted coils around magnets if I remember the latest orbo claim correctly. Those mystery magnets are doing compression which produces acceleration.

Had Einstein correct labeled his equation it would have been:

Mass To Atomic Energy Conversion = MC2

All free energy devices use mass as the fuel source and they all use acceleration to convert it into energy. There are lots of ways to produce the acceleration. Pulse compression just happens to be a simple one. See Thane Heins for a better example.

Inductance in a circuit is the analog of mass in a mechanical system.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 07, 2010, 04:45:19 PM
Inductance in a circuit is the analog of mass in a mechanical system.

GB

Elementary my dear Watson. What is your point?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 07, 2010, 07:59:31 PM
All free energy devices use mass as the fuel source and they all use acceleration to convert it into energy. There are lots of ways to produce the acceleration. Pulse compression just happens to be a simple one. See Thane Heins for a better example.

Inductance in a circuit is the analog of mass in a mechanical system. 

GB

Elementary my dear Watson. What is your point?

You need to first understand what your point was.  You said all free energy devices use acceleration of the mass as a fuel source to convert it into energy, and then I said the inductance in a circuit is the analog of mass in a mechanical system.  If you don't undertand my point, then you must not understand the point you were trying to make.  If you can't connect the dots, then the words escape me to show you otherwise.  Maybe the below equations will help you, but I doubt it, because you must first understand the point you was trying to make in order to understand the point I was trying to make.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 08, 2010, 06:07:58 PM
GB,

I was only placating you when I stated you were a smart person. It is obvious you have the ability to cut and paste, zero electronics background and took high school math.

Inductance in a circuit is an analog to mass in a mechanical model UNTIL you place a shorted coil on the inductor which is what I referenced. Perhaps if you were not trying to hide your lack of knowledge while trying to solve some puzzle you have no clue about, you would have seen that and not made two stupid replies.

Furthermore, Joseph Leedskalnin wrapped two shorted coils around an inductor and proved that a magnetic field can be conserved without current flow. So if your statement that an inductor is an analog to mass in a mechanical system is true, then you can explain why there is no friction.

Your pedantic understanding of physics and EM is not going to produce a free energy device anymore than your pareidolia driven self delusional math. I told you how and why it works and your replies only prove that you can't fix stupid. You got outsmarted by the empirical science of a man with a sixth grade education well over 50 years ago. Did you find the image of Jesus on a hot pocket? Maybe you can find yourself here:

http://listverse.com/2010/01/07/top-10-common-faults-in-human-thought/
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: TinselKoala on December 08, 2010, 08:52:33 PM
@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

You forget--- I have actually built 2 functioning e-Orbos, have explored the effects of which you speak, and have successfully replicated all of Steorn's demonstrated behaviors.
I don't need to prove YOU wrong...I have already proven that what Steorn has demonstrated, does not support either their claim or yours.

If you think that you are right, go ahead and build a device that will take advantage of your effect. Or explain why, if your effect is really happening, why Steorn's motors don't work.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 08, 2010, 10:25:35 PM
GB,

I was only placating you when I stated you were a smart person. It is obvious you have the ability to cut and paste, zero electronics background and took high school math.

Inductance in a circuit is an analog to mass in a mechanical model UNTIL you place a shorted coil on the inductor which is what I referenced. Perhaps if you were not trying to hide your lack of knowledge while trying to solve some puzzle you have no clue about, you would have seen that and not made two stupid replies.

Furthermore, Joseph Leedskalnin wrapped two shorted coils around an inductor and proved that a magnetic field can be conserved without current flow. So if your statement that an inductor is an analog to mass in a mechanical system is true, then you can explain why there is no friction.
Your pedantic understanding of physics and EM is not going to produce a free energy device anymore than your pareidolia driven self delusional math. I told you how and why it works and your replies only prove that you can't fix stupid. You got outsmarted by the empirical science of a man with a sixth grade education well over 50 years ago. Did you find the image of Jesus on a hot pocket? Maybe you can find yourself here:

http://listverse.com/2010/01/07/top-10-common-faults-in-human-thought/

For one, when a Leedskkalnin "PMH" is charged, then it's charged with 0 inductance because of the two oppositely wound coils cancelling out the inductance in the circuit, thus the current reaches it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously to saturate the core material, such as iron or steel.  This is why everybody charges their PMH with a very quick tap of the battery.  So, your argument that the inductance in a circuit is an analog to mass in a mechanical model UNTIL you place a shorted coil on the inductor is wrong and is based on false premesis because the PMH is charged with 0 inductance when the two oppositely wound coils are shorted.  When the PMH is charged with a keeper on it and then the current is removed, then the magnetization of the material will fall to Br or to the remenance magnetization of the material, which is the magnetization left over after an external field is removed (residual magnetization).  When the keeper is removed, then the magnetization will fall to Hc or the point of coercivity.  This is just describing the B-H Hysteresis loop of a core material and is well known.

I suggest you start watching at 35 minutes of this MIT video, which explains how the PMH works, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddU6HBFlvEk  In fact, it may do you some good to watch all of MIT video's.  It's obvious you have no reasoning skills.  No reasoning skills * Any amount of education = 0 understanding and 0 comprehension, so I doubt the videos will help you much.

I've been thinking about using a bifilar coil to charge the toroid with 0 inductance, then disconnect one coil shortly after the beginning of the pulse, then disconnect the other coil at the end of the pulse width.  This is how to charge a coil with 0 inductance where the current can reach it's maximum value almost instantaneously.  If there is no rate of change for the current as the dual magnets depart from TDC, then there will be no BEMF.  Sean did say in one of the demo talks that the difference in the e-orbo and the normal pulse motor was the position and structure of the coils along with a different current required, thus the reason for the rheostat.  I think Steorn may have used two oppositely wound coils or a bifilar coil to charge the toroids with 0 inductance energy in the e-Orbo, then disconnect one coil shortly after the pulse and disconnect the other coil at the end of the pulse width.  There was also a relay used in the demo talks to connect/disconnect the two coils at the appropriate time according to the optical sensor.

Did you try this also TinselKoala?  Oh, I forgot.........you tried everything under the sun.  Then again, if my memory serves me correctly, you didn't even use torroids, you didn't try dual magnets, you didn't try magnetic bearings in your replications.  Since you didn't try to replicate the obvious, then I'm sure you didn't try to replicate the not so obvious things, such as why the torroids in the e-Orbo was positioned and were structurally different than the torroids in the normal pulse motor during the demo talks, etc. in order to support the claims made by Steorn.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 08, 2010, 11:36:31 PM
You forget--- I have actually built 2 functioning e-Orbos, have explored the effects of which you speak, and have successfully replicated all of Steorn's demonstrated behaviors.
I don't need to prove YOU wrong...I have already proven that what Steorn has demonstrated, does not support either their claim or yours.

If you think that you are right, go ahead and build a device that will take advantage of your effect. Or explain why, if your effect is really happening, why Steorn's motors don't work.

No, I didn't forget about your replication attempts.  In your opinion you may have successfully replicated the e-Orbo, but according to Steorn you have not.  IMO, your replication attempts of the e-Orbo was more like replicating a normal pulse motor.  It was obvious you had the intent of debunking the e-Orbo from the very start, and your final replications clearly shows this.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 06:51:24 AM
For one, when a Leedskkalnin "PMH" is charged, then it's charged with 0 inductance because of the two oppositely wound coils cancelling out the inductance in the circuit, thus the current reaches it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously to saturate the core material, such as iron or steel.  This is why everybody charges their PMH with a very quick tap of the battery.  So, your argument that the inductance in a circuit is an analog to mass in a mechanical model UNTIL you place a shorted coil on the inductor is wrong and is based on false premesis because the PMH is charged with 0 inductance when the two oppositely wound coils are shorted.  When the PMH is charged with a keeper on it and then the current is removed, then the magnetization of the material will fall to Br or to the remenance magnetization of the material, which is the magnetization left over after an external field is removed (residual magnetization).  When the keeper is removed, then the magnetization will fall to Hc or the point of coercivity.  This is just the B-H Hysteresis loop of a core material.

The difference between you and I, is I understand knowledge is experience and you are filled with magical thoughts and self delusion. You can't paste a link to a lecture and make your point. However, people such as yourself suffering from pareidolia often do this. So here is a little reality check that blows your magical thinking out of the water:

Place an old inductive amp meter into the PMH circuit and note that the meter continues to indicate current flow even though there is nothing but a copper wire connecting it to the PMH coils.

What is compressing the spring in the amp meter connected only by a COPPER WIRE???


This is just the B-H Hysteresis loop of a core material.

To suggest hysteresis explains perpetual motion is laughable since they tend to suggest the opposite of each other. You loose all credibility when you make a idiotic statement like that. Consider yourself exposed as a below-average pretender.

I suggest you start watching at 35 minutes of this MIT video, which explains how the PMH works, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddU6HBFlvEk  In fact, it may do you some good to watch all of MIT video's.  It's obvious you have no reasoning skills.  No reasoning skills * Any amount of education = 0 understanding and 0 comprehension, so I doubt the videos will help you much.

I have watched quite a few of them and find them useless but then he uses a model of the atom that does not have the negative e (thanks to Einstein removing that from Dirac equations) while claiming there is a "vacuum field" surrounding the FE atom and claiming an electron is in perpetual motion while that violates the first two laws of thermodynamics, etc.

You are not smart enough to see all the flaws and hypocrisy in his reasoning while he uses math to try and validate his claims. Then you paste his pointless lecture along with your paste of some math and hold that up with your magical thinking as "Hey everybody, look how smart I am!" Unfortunately, it only impresses other morons. "Because I said so", does not work for me and even worse because someone else said so???

He in no way fully explains the PMH in that lecture. You in no way understand or describe the PHM in your pathetic attempt to explain it. To suggest hysteresis explains perpetual motion is laughable - proof you don't understand Lewin's lecture or the PMH.

You cannot explain the PHM or why it indicates current flow through the amp meter without an understanding of AB effect, persistent spin curl wave and negative e. But then, Walter Lewin probably doesn't understand it either. If he did, he would not live very long if he taught it.

I've been thinking about using a bifilar coil to charge the toroid with 0 inductance, then disconnect one coil shortly after the beginning of the pulse, then disconnect the other coil at the end of the pulse width.

More self delusion. You can't "charge" an inductor without a magnetic field. That is why it is called an "inductor" dumb ass. A bifilar coil is self inductive and thus self canceling just like your pathetic posts.

I fully understand what Lewin is teaching and I also understand what he is unable to teach and probably does not know which would account for the 22 flaws in EM theory Marinov noted prior to being murdered for teaching why with his perpetual mobile. Marinov understood the PMH along with Testatica and a bunch of other stuff.

Why don't ask Lewin if it is possible to produce a free energy device using classic EM or even quantum mechanics? He is going to tell you "no" and suggest you take a physics class or two.

Knowledge is experience. You are a pompous, self delusional empty hat hiding behind a thin layer of long math. You are so blinded by your arrogance you literally can't see the shorted coils of the Orbo compressing a magnetic field to produce acceleration which converts mass into the atomic energy of the mass.

E=MC2.

PS - You can add "escalation of commitment" to the other obvious flaws in your thought such as pareidolia. Keep pushing, my guess is you will cover the list from top to bottom but then that list is all about magical thinkers.

http://listverse.com/2010/01/07/top-10-common-faults-in-human-thought/
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 06:14:51 PM
More self delusion. You can't "charge" an inductor without a magnetic field. That is why it is called an "inductor" dumb ass. A bifilar coil is self inductive and thus self canceling just like your pathetic posts.

That's why I said to disconnect one of the coils shortly after the beginning of the pulse, you dumb ass.  After you disconnect one of the coils, then it's no longer acting as a bifilar coil and is no longer self cancelling, you dumb ass.  The current is flowing in opposite directions in both coils at it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously because there is no net inductance, you dumb ass.  After you disconnect one of the coils, then you'll have a net magnetic field and a net inductance, but the current is already at it's maximum value, you dumb ass.  The end result is charging the coil with 0 inductance which allows the current to reach it's maximum value almost instantaneously with a net magnetic field after one of the coils is disconnected, dumb ass.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: tak22 on December 09, 2010, 06:26:51 PM
 :D I'm neutral on this one, but that was an impressive reply GB, thanks for staying out of the mud.

tak
 
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 06:43:06 PM
That's why I said to disconnect one of the coils shortly after the beginning of the pulse, you dumb ass.  After you disconnect one of the coils, then it's no longer acting as a bifilar coil and is no longer self cancelling, you dumb ass.  The current is flowing in opposite directions in both coils at it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously because there is no net inductance, you dumb ass.  After you disconnect one of the coils, then you'll have a net magnetic field and a net inductance, but the current is already at it's maximum value, you dumb ass.  The end result is charging the coil with 0 inductance which allows the current to reach it's maximum value almost instantaneously with a net magnetic field after one of the coils is disconnected, dumb ass.

GB

Apparently you do not know what a bifilar coil is dumb ass.

Take a piece of wire, fold it in half and start winding at the fold. That is a bifilar coil and they are typically used to induct electrons off a resonant coil below them dumb ass.

A volume of your BS exposed and that was all you had?

I noticed you forgot to mention anything about that old amp meter blowing your magical thinking out of the water. How about those clearly visible extra coils embedded in the plastic of the Steorn you can't seem to address? Oh... Dumb ass.

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 06:46:21 PM
:D I'm neutral on this one, but that was an impressive reply GB, thanks for staying out of the mud.

tak
I coughed up part of a lung laughing about that one. I love sarcasm.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: XS-NRG on December 09, 2010, 06:57:58 PM
Where is the Slorbo replication? Dumbasses
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 07:45:30 PM
Apparently you do not know what a bifilar coil is dumb ass.

Take a piece of wire, fold it in half and start winding at the fold. That is a bifilar coil and they are typically used to induct electrons off a resonant coil below them dumb ass.

A volume of your BS exposed and that was all you had?

I noticed you forgot to mention anything about that old amp meter blowing your magical thinking out of the water. How about those clearly visible extra coils embedded in the plastic of the Steorn you can't seem to address? Oh... Dumb ass.

There are different types of bifilar coils, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil

Quote from: Wiki
Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). Others are wound so that the current flows in opposite directions. The magnetic field created by one winding is therefore equal and opposite to that created by the other, resulting in a net magnetic field of zero (i.e., neutralizing any negative effects in the coil). In electrical terms, this means that the self-inductance of the coil is zero.

It doesn't matter how the coils are wound, as long as there is 0 inductance at the beginning of the pulse, and a net magnetic field and a net inductance after one of the windings is disconnected.  Cut the wire at the fold, now you have two wires and 4 ends.  It doesn't change anything.

As far as the amp meter showing current flow isn't all that unusual in a PMH, because some materials will slowly lose their magnetization over time, especially if there are tiny gaps between the keeper and the "U" legs on a PMH.  If there's a small amount of current flow, then it's dissipating energy and losing its magnetization over time.  Disconnect the keeper, then most of the energy will be dissipated at once and the PMH will be at Hc.  That's why a LED will light when the keeper is pulled off the PMH, because it's dissippating most of it's energy at one time.  The best PMH is one that has no current flow, thus it will hold its charge for a long time.

GB

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 07:48:59 PM
Where is the Slorbo replication? Dumbasses

Quit being a smart ass dumb ass. A Slorbo can only replicated in a dumb asses imagination. It is an imaginary effect for those that can't understand physics and barely passed high school math.

You don't need the dumb ass pulse motor to replicate. Take stiffler's dumb ass "cold electricity" loopstick and pulse it at 21.5 mhz through a Colpitt's oscillator with two shorted coils of #34 on the ends of the core of 500 turns. It is a device I call OU for dumb asses and probably the most simple way to build an OU device. A smart ass will run the shorted coils to step down transformers to gain more energy.

Notice how when stiffler hit the 50% duty cycle of 21.5 mhz the output went up significantly?

PS - Only a dumb ass would publicly demonstrate an OU device smart ass. Half the people here are paid to look for smart asses that make that dumb ass mistake.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 08:01:37 PM
There are different types of bifilar coils dumb ass, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil

Wow, yet another impressive cut and paste from a dumb ass. The flat coil is called a pancake coil by anybody that actually knows something about it and if you did, you would know that the flat coil could not meet your description. Therefor, the bifilar coil I described is EXACTLY what is shown in wiki and what you would be claiming to use. - Another FAIL DUMB ASS!

It doesn't matter how the coils are wound, as long as there is 0 inductance at the beginning of the pulse, and a net magnetic field and a net inductance after one of the windings is disconnected.

Good luck with that dumb ass. There is only one winding in a bifilar coil.

As far as the amp meter showing current flow isn't all that unusual in a PMH, because some materials will slowly lose their magnetization over time, especially if there are tiny gaps between the keeper and the "U" legs on a PMH.  If there's a small amount of current flow, then it's dissipating energy and losing its magnetization over time.  Disconnect the keeper, then most of the energy will be dissipated at once and the PMH will be at Hc.  That's why a LED will light when the keeper is pulled off the PMH, because it's dissippating most of it's energy at one time.  The best PMH is one that has no current flow, thus it will hold its charge for a long time.

GB

And this is where I pissed my pants laughing! You obviously can't grasp the concept of an AMP meter, connected to a PMH using copper wire to connect the two.

There isn't a "small amount of current flow" dumb ass. It is the maximum current in the circuit and it is retained WITHOUT CURRENT FLOW. THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT DUMB ASS. Good luck explaining that with your paste of Lewin's lecture dumb ass.

Why don't get out of your mother's basement for a while, go down to an auto parts store and spend 15 bucks on an analog amp meter. Build yourself one of those "best PMH" and actually do the experiment dumb ass.

THEN you can come back here, read my posts and realize what a dumb ass you are.

EDIT

If you put two amp in, you will read two amps on the meter. The fact of the matter is, you don't need the keeper or a magnetic loop if you know how to set up the experiment and measure the presence of the spin curl.

Compressing the spring in the meter is doing work and Maxwell's equations do not allow for free energy or perpetual motion. The amount of work produced to compress the spring for a long duration, exceeds the amount of energy that went into the system which violates second law. You can't just write off thermodynamics with silly terms like residual magnetism or whatever you or Lewin came up with.

You gloss right over that kind of stuff that falls under "because I said so" science. You don't have a complete enough understanding of the subject to notice those little things that Lewin is ignoring while he programs children into thinking they understand EM. Those 22 flaws that Marinov cited never were explained away by Lewin or anybody else. That is the difference between your monkey see, monkey do programming and my experience.

That being said, I can see where you are trying to go with the bifilar idea. I know more than I am will to share with you since you are a prick and a dumb ass but keep thinking about it and have a look at Ron Hubbard and Marinov. They both used a spark struck against the inductor to set the field in motion but there is a better way that is not so random.

The spark happening here and there at just the right time produced a reflective wave that compressed, polarized  and "accelerated" the field setting it in motion. The PMH is static.

Hubbard had a better way of harvesting the energy than Marinov.

Oh, I almost forgot - dumb ass.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 08:40:07 PM
There isn't a "small amount of current flow" dumb ass. It is the maximum current in the circuit and it is retained WITHOUT CURRENT FLOW. THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT DUMB ASS. Good luck explaining that with your paste of Lewin's lecture dumb ass.

The PMH will lose it's stored energy at the rate determined by the resistance or load of the circuit when shorted, just like a capacitor. If the coils in the PMH isn't shorted, then it's not releasing any energy, just like a capacitor doesn't release it's energy when not shorted.  The PMH doesn't release more energy than what was put into it, just like a capacitor doesn't release more energy than what was put into it. There is nothing perpertual about the permenant magnet holder.  PMH = "permanent magnet holder", and does not equal "perpetual motion holder".

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 09:36:02 PM
The PMH will lose it's stored energy at the rate determined by the resistance or load of the circuit when shorted, just like a capacitor. If the coils in the PMH isn't shorted, then it's not releasing any energy, just like a capacitor doesn't release it's energy when not shorted.  The PMH doesn't release more energy than what was put into it, just like a capacitor doesn't release more energy than what was put into it. There is nothing perpertual about the permenant magnet holder.  PMH = "permanent magnet holder", and does not equal "perpetual motion holder".

GB

The PMH will lose it's stored energy at the rate determined by the resistance or load of the circuit when shorted, just like a capacitor.

Dude... Without voltage there is no current flow and and without current flow, there can be no resistance. Sorry dumb ass, you are still a below average pretender and no amount of more stupid is going to change that.

If the coils in the PMH isn't shorted, then it's not releasing any energy

Dude.. If the coils are not shorted, it is not a PMH... Are you high?

The PMH doesn't release more energy than what was put into it, just like a capacitor doesn't release more energy than what was put into it.

Dude... Just because you don't know how to harvest the energy does not mean it is not there. The vacuum field is there and you can measure it with a special coil you won't be able to paste from the wiki (Hubbard) or a copper disk. (Marinov) A sixth grader named Joe did know how to harvest the energy from the vacuum field and outsmarted both you and Lewin with an old engine block as a test bed. But then... Joe did critical thinking, not magical thinking.

There is nothing perpertual about the permenant magnet holder.  PMH = "permanent magnet holder", and does not equal "perpetual motion holder".

The field that is "permanent" is as perpetual as a permanent magnet. Now you are playing semantics but are too stupid to look up the definition before playing the game. Here, since you are not bright enough to even spell both the words perpetual or permanent  correctly, I'll feed you the definitions on a silver platter:

per·ma·nent
1. existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change.

per·pet·u·al
1. continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.

You are without a doubt the dumbest ass I have ever had the pleasure of handing his dumb ass to. If you had an ounce of integrity, you would go to the nearest tattoo parlor and have "Quartoo's bitch" branded on your dumb ass. You have however helped me prove that you can't fix stupid anymore than you can fix crazy. But then, there really is no difference. Hence my suggestion:

http://listverse.com/2010/01/07/top-10-common-faults-in-human-thought/

Checkmate.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 09:56:21 PM
Wow, yet another impressive cut and paste from a dumb ass. The flat coil is called a pancake coil by anybody that actually knows something about it and if you did, you would know that the flat coil could not meet your description. Therefor, the bifilar coil I described is EXACTLY what is shown in wiki and what you would be claiming to use. - Another FAIL DUMB ASS!

Your only focusing on one type of bifilar coil.  Below is another quote from Wiki.

Quote from: Wiki
A different type of bifilar coil is used in some relay windings and transformers used for a switched-mode power supply to suppress back-emf. In this case, the two wire coils are closely spaced and wound in parallel but are electrically isolated from each other. The primary coil is driven to operate the relay, and the secondary coil is short-circuited inside the case.

As you can see in the above quote, a certain type of bifilar coil uses two wire coils wound in parallel and electrically isolated from each other, instead of the single wire bifilar coil you are referencing.  With my idea, the two wire coils wound in parallel will be energized in opposite directions at the beginning of the pulse with 0 net inductance.  Then one of the coils will be disconnected shortly after so the current is flowing at it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously with a net magnetic field and a net inductance.  This allows for no BEMF as the dual magnets depart from TDC because the current has no rate of change when it's already at it's maximum value allowed by the resistance.

You can try to play with the words and definitions all you want, but it's not going to change the idea in which I'm trying to convey.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: XS-NRG on December 09, 2010, 09:57:25 PM
here is my plan on how to replicate the slorbo effect.

Get some rusty nails and dip them in vinnager five times.
They need to be of the fe56 type.
Blow some hot air over them to accellerate drying process.
Carefully drill some holes in some ostrich eggs.
Place the vinnager dipped nails into the eggs and attach solid copper leads to them.
Now lower the eggs into a radiant energy reservoir.
At this point you should see the eggs emit a small amount of green light.
Connect the leads to any load or at this point it's a good idea to switch off the main switch in your home and connect the leads directly to your house wiring.
You can test to see if all went well by switching on the livingroom lamp.
If it doesn't work try the bathroom lamp.
Still no luck ? repeat steps one to five.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 10:09:22 PM
here is my plan on how to replicate the slorbo effect.

Get some rusty nails and dip them in vinnager five times.
They need to be of the fe56 type.
Blow some hot air over them to accellerate drying process.
Carefully drill some holes in some ostrich eggs.
Place the vinnager dipped nails into the eggs and attach solid copper leads to them.
Now lower the eggs into a radiant energy reservoir.
At this point you should see the eggs emit a small amount of green light.
Connect the leads to any load or at this point it's a good idea to switch off the main switch in your home and connect the leads directly to your house wiring.
You can test to see if all went well by switching on the livingroom lamp.
If it doesn't work try the bathroom lamp.
Still no luck ? repeat steps one to five.

XS-NRG,

While your suggestion is clearly based in sound quantum scientific theory, and the proof of that is course the "green glow", I have a much better suggestion which I am fond of using that does not hurt big bird's babies.

What GB should do, is take two copper pipes and attach them to AC power via a really big orange extension cord. THE CORD HAS TO BE ORANGE FOR SATETY REASONS!!! Next, have Dr. Lewin pound one of then 4 inches into his forehead and the other pipe up his ass.

It would not be overunity per se, but it would be "over" and there would once again be "unity" in this forum." It also fixes crazy, stupid and removes that stale smell of loser from mommies basement.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 10:22:02 PM
Your only focusing on one type of bifilar coil.  Below is another quote from Wiki.

As you can see in the above quote, a certain type of bifilar coil uses two wire coils wound in parallel and electrically isolated from each other, instead of the single wire bifilar coil you are referencing.  With my idea, the two wire coils wound in parallel will be energized in opposite directions at the beginning of the pulse with 0 net inductance.  Then one of the coils will be disconnected shortly after so the current is flowing at it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously with a net magnetic field and a net inductance.  This allows for no BEMF has the dual magnets depart from TDC because the current has no rate of change when it's already at it's maximum value allowed by the resistance.

You can be a prick and try to play with the words and definitions all you want, but it's not going to change the idea in which I'm trying to convey.

GB

That is used to suppress relay coil transients which can go over 1000 volts in mission critical systems like an auto pilot. Usually you just use a diode across the coil. The other coil is just shorted out - sort of like your brain only the relay is capable of doing something useful.

I gave you the plan to build a free energy device dumb ass. I told you how that stupid orbo works dumb ass. You are not here to learn how to produce a free energy device, you are here to mentally masturbate. Unfortunately, you have some dodgy X chromosome credentials and all males with down syndrome are sterile. Do you have a really big forehead? Could you get a big person to measure your forehead for us and get back with that info?

I am not trying to be insulting, I just want to make sure that I am not being catty with a fucking retard since that would be rude.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 10:31:25 PM
Dude... Without voltage there is no current flow and and without current flow, there can be no resistance. Sorry dumb ass, you are still a below average pretender and no amount of more stupid is going to change that.

Without current flow there can be no resistance?  LOL.  Without current flow, there can be an infinite resistance, such as when the circuit is open.  A lower resistance, means a greater amount of current can flow.  A higher resistance, means a lower amount of current can flow. 

Dude.. If the coils are not shorted, it is not a PMH... Are you high?

I never said that.  You taking what I said out of context again.

The field that is "permanent" is as perpetual as a permanent magnet. Now you are playing semantics but are too stupid to look up the definition before playing the game. Here, since you are not bright enough to even spell both the words perpetual or permanent  correctly, I'll feed you the definitions on a silver platter:

per·ma·nent
1. existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change.

per·pet·u·al
1. continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.

You conveniently left out motion.  Something that is static and permenant doesn't mean it's in continuing motion.  You can have a permanent electric field that is static, such as an electret, without the permanent electric field being in perpetual or continual motion.  Play with the words all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: FatBird on December 09, 2010, 10:32:22 PM
Good points.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 10:35:03 PM
That is used to suppress relay coil transients which can go over 1000 volts in mission critical systems like an auto pilot.

It's still considered a bifilar coil.  It can be useful for other purposes also, such as what I've been describing.  Of course I'm not going to have one of the coils shorted all of the time as in the example given by the wiki article.  It still doesn't change the fact that it's considered a bifilar coil.

GB 
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 09, 2010, 10:55:18 PM
Without current flow, then there can be an infinite resistance, such as when the circuit is open.  A lower resistance, means a greater amount of current can flow.  A higher resistance, means a lower amount of current can flow.  You have it ass-backwards dumb ass.

I never said that.  You taking what I said out of context again, dumbass.

You conveniently left out motion.  Something that is static and permenant doesn't mean it's in continuing motion.  You can have a permanent electric field that is static, without it being in perpetual motion.  Play with the words all you want you prick, but it doesn't change anything you dumbass.

GB

I wrote "without current flow, there can be no resistance" I.e., there is no voltage, current or resistance in an open circuit. You are just too functionally illiterate to comprehend what I wrote. After 30+ years of electronics experience, I am pretty sure I understand ohms law. You however seem to think you have found the mystery of the universe buried in the code of LRC.

You can have a permanent electric field that is static, without it being in perpetual motion.

Really? Could you tell us all about that and perhaps you could paste one of Lewin's lectures or cite something to back that up.

When I look up the term "electric field" here is what I get:
In physics, an electric field surrounds electrically charged particles and time-varying magnetic fields.

That term time-varying would be a contradiction to your use of the word "static".

You know what? It just occurred to me, you are too stupid to learn anything and as such a waste of my free energy. You continue to get your ass handed to you and you never acknowledge your mistakes. You are not interested in solving puzzles or learning something, you are only trying to find someone stupid enough to validate your pathetic intellect. While normally there is an abundance of stupid available here, you must have hit the bottom of the barrel. Haven't you noticed people are making fun of you? You are too stupid to even learn to spell the word permanent.

I just unsubscribed to this idiot thread. If you can't acknowledge your mistakes and learn something new, you are not sane and you will always be a dumb ass. Even I have limits to what I am willing to put up with in the interest of solving the stupidity that the Earth is drowning in.

C-ya dumb ass.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 11:11:21 PM
I just unsubscribed to this idiot thread.

C-ya dumb ass.

quarktoo has done nothing but trolled this forum.  Same pattern and B.S. from him in all the threads he post in.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 09, 2010, 11:42:53 PM
Deleted.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: XS-NRG on December 09, 2010, 11:58:25 PM
Save your energy GB this is obviously NOT going to help YOU any further.
I know what you want to do this is not the right time nor the right place.
You will ruin yourself this way.
Stop it.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 10, 2010, 12:10:40 AM
Save your energy GB this is obviously NOT going to help YOU any further.
I know what you want to do this is not the right time nor the right place.
You will ruin yourself this way.
Stop it.

You're right.  Thanks XS-NRG.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: void109 on December 10, 2010, 09:22:25 PM
Furthermore, Joseph Leedskalnin wrapped two shorted coils around an inductor and proved that a magnetic field can be conserved without current flow. So if your statement that an inductor is an analog to mass in a mechanical system is true, then you can explain why there is no friction.

Could you provide a reference for that?  I'm trying to wrap my head around it, I'd happily replicate that experiment with more details :)

Thanks!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: sigma16 on December 11, 2010, 02:39:00 AM

If you put two amp in, you will read two amps on the meter. The fact of the matter is, you don't need the keeper or a magnetic loop if you know how to set up the experiment and measure the presence of the spin curl.
...
That being said, I can see where you are trying to go with the bifilar idea. I know more than I am will to share with you since you are a prick and a dumb ass but keep thinking about it and have a look at Ron Hubbard and Marinov. They both used a spark struck against the inductor to set the field in motion but there is a better way that is not so random.

The spark happening here and there at just the right time produced a reflective wave that compressed, polarized  and "accelerated" the field setting it in motion. The PMH is static.

Hubbard had a better way of harvesting the energy than Marinov.

Oh, I almost forgot - dumb ass.

better way that is not so random...

...and no one asked what that is.


Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: sigma16 on December 11, 2010, 02:46:18 AM
quarktoo has done nothing but trolled this forum.  Same pattern and B.S. from him in all the threads he post in.

GB

You should do yourself the favor of listening to Quarktoo.  He is no "troll", but rather an "anti-troll"!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 11, 2010, 02:59:17 AM
You should do yourself the favor of listening to Quarktoo.  He is no "troll", but rather an "anti-troll"!
meh, she (quark) is just another 'goose' that claims to be able to lay golden eggs but somehow cannot demonstrate it... just like IST, but slightly better spoken.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: utilitarian on December 11, 2010, 03:12:29 AM
You should do yourself the favor of listening to Quarktoo.  He is no "troll", but rather an "anti-troll"!

Oh?  He is no novice to electronics, but he is a holocaust denier and basically thinks the world is run by a jewish/zionist cabal, and is convinced that people get killed for exposing information related to free energy (probably by said zionist cabal).  So you sort of have to filter everything he says through that.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: TinselKoala on December 11, 2010, 06:17:25 PM
Gravityblock said,
Quote
"Did you try this also TinselKoala?  Oh, I forgot.........you tried everything under the sun.  Then again, if my memory serves me correctly, you didn't even use torroids, you didn't try dual magnets, you didn't try magnetic bearings in your replications.  Since you didn't try to replicate the obvious, then I'm sure you didn't try to replicate the not so obvious things, such as why the torroids in the e-Orbo was positioned and were structurally different than the torroids in the normal pulse motor during the demo talks, etc. in order to support the claims made by Steorn."


It's pretty clear that you think you know my work but don't really.

I don't mind you criticizing my work. But I do wish you would stop lying and misrepresenting it.

My videos on the Orbette 1 and 2 are comprehensive and, except for the minor point of the magnetic bearings, show that every statement you make about my work above is wrong.

The videos are up on YT for anyone to see. You should watch them, you might learn something REAL about what you are talking about.

Just for the record: I used many different types of coils, and to counter objections like yours, I used TOROIDS exclusively in all the later work. Toroids of many different compositions and windings, and I took current-distance-force data --- REAL DATA FROM MEASUREMENTS -- on all of them.

In my rotors I used every possible magnet arrangement -- "dual magnets" of every kind, including adding biasing magnets to the coils (which greatly improved performance, by the way).

In my various videos I very clearly explain the differences between the various types of ordinary pulse motors, and the Steorn Orbo (and my Orbette) core effect motor type. I am not sure you understand those differences yourself, from your posts.

But you are right about one thing: I didn't use magnetic bearings. Can you tell me what significant effect this has, why it invalidates my experimentation and data?

Here are just a few photos that should serve to correct the misrepresentation of my work that you are pushing. There are lots more where these came from. Note especially the scope graph, which proves that my Orbette uses LESS POWER -- and since the times are identical, less ENERGY -- when it's pushing the rotor magnets than when it isn't. Let that sink in for a while, and then tell me again whether or not I have reproduced the Orbo effect in my machine. If that doesn't convince you, please see my last YT video on Orbette.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/9c18d77dc80ab500ad923178488c55e94g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f8df838aafbefc826b39ab81e3a7219a5g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/51442b50b044e201c3e60d0cc24342794g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/b8757d8398799a2ad728bf649988dc464g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/d12c60833a8d8ca23159dbd81c8b45685g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/63260e67b8110c443ba531d85def6d7c5g.jpg


(ETA: I am particularly incensed about the statement regarding various different orientations. As you can see from the above photos, both face-on (like the Plinths) and edge-on (like the scoposcopy demo half-Orbos) orientations were used. What might not be so clear from these photos is that I carefully and cleverly designed the coil mounts so that ANY arbitrary orientation and spacing and vertical/horizontal positioning could be tested...and I tested a lot of them.)
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: spinn_MP on December 11, 2010, 11:15:14 PM
Hey, TK!
Don't bother.
If people don't recognize that you actually came closest to the reproducing "Steorn's effect", in reality...

Again, please,  don't bother...

Cheers!

P.S. I may get the whole thing wrong, I still don't understand what the "Steorn effect" really is....
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 11, 2010, 11:23:58 PM
Did you try this also TinselKoala?  Oh, I forgot.........you tried everything under the sun.  Then again, if my memory serves me correctly, you didn't even use torroids, you didn't try dual magnets, you didn't try magnetic bearings in your replications.  Since you didn't try to replicate the obvious, then I'm sure you didn't try to replicate the not so obvious things, such as why the torroids in the e-Orbo was positioned and were structurally different than the torroids in the normal pulse motor during the demo talks, etc. in order to support the claims made by Steorn.

GB

@TinselKoala,

I said, "if my memory serves me correctly", and my memory did serve me correctly for the Orbette 1.  You claimed to have debunked Steorn's claim with that junk even before your replication of Orbette 2.  Since this was the case, then it's of no surprise that your Orbette 2 doesn't support Steorn's claims either. I looked at your youtube channel just now and most of the videos on Orbette 1 appears to be missing.  You only have two videos on Orbette 2 which I can see and was unaware of.  You finally decided to replicate the obvious, I'm really surprised.  But then, what did you show with the Orbette 2?  In one video you show how properly aligning the torroids with the magnets induced a near 0 CEMF in the torroid (We already knew this would be the case though).  That's a really good start at a true replication, but that is also where you stopped with the Orbette 2. I still see a BEMF in your current trace as it rises and before it flattens out.  Your voltage/current trace doesn't match the e-Orbo.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 11, 2010, 11:36:38 PM
Hey, TK!
Don't bother.
If people don't recognize that you actually came closest to the reproducing "Steorn's effect", in reality...

Again, please,  don't bother...

Cheers!

P.S. I may get the whole thing wrong, I still don't understand what the "Steorn effect" really is....

You're going to put TK's replications of reproducing the "Steorn effect" above the replications of Clanzer and Naudin?  LOL.  The Steorn effect is difficult to reproduce in the e-Orbo, and is why they're concentrating on the ssOrbo, so the "effect" can be demeonstrated in a plug and play device.  TK had the intent on debunking Steorn's claims from the very start, and his Orbette 1 replications clearly shows this. 

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: spinn_MP on December 11, 2010, 11:57:39 PM
You're going to put TK's replications of reproducing the "Steorn effect" above the replications of Clanzer and Naudin?  LOL.  The Steorn effect is difficult to reproduce in the e-Orbo, and is why they're concentrating on the ssOrbo, so the "effect" can be demeonstrated in a plug and play device.

GB

Doh... Yes, I saw correctly you're quite fresh...

CLaNZeR? Good guy. Mostly naive, but still... A very good replicator.

Naudin? ahh... A slightly better in understanding "the theory", but otherwise, mostly lost...

TK? Al? The "Top Notch" when it came to the question....

Satisfied? No?

You should start with at least one of the Steorn's "always proven to work" concepts....

ROTLFMAO...
 

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 12, 2010, 12:13:43 AM
Doh... Yes, I saw correctly you're quite fresh...

CLaNZeR? Good guy. Mostly naive, but still... A very good replicator.

Naudin? ahh... A slightly better in understanding "the theory", but otherwise, mostly lost...

TK? Al? The "Top Notch" when it came to the question....

Satisfied? No?

You should start with at least one of the Steorn's "always proven to work" concepts....

ROTLFMAO...

You with only 81 posts, while the majority of those 81 posts are bashing other people, is the one who is quite fresh.  Just look below.


@poynt99, the opposite is true. Steorn have already shown publicly convincing experimental results for the production of OU and these have already been reproduced independently by @Omega_0. The self-appointed critics  in the village of the banned forum who you obviously listen to are only zealous activists who have nothing else to spew but spite and/or clearly incompetent technicians let alone the proven fraudsters such as @alsetalokin(TinselKoala).

I almost forgot about Alsetalokin.  ROTFLMAO

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: spinn_MP on December 12, 2010, 12:36:56 AM
You with only 81 posts, is the one who is quite fresh.  Just look below.

I almost forgot about Alsetalokin.  ROTFLMAO

GB
Funny.
Idiot. First, learn at least something from "conventional, obsolete, orthodox,... science"... Physics 101 would be too much for you, so start with the Adam and Eve...

Lol, what's the Steorns effect?


P.S. OmniBot is not a reference, either...



Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 12, 2010, 12:46:51 AM
Lol, what's the Steorns effect?


P.S. OmniBot is not a reference, either...

The Steorn effect is a "time variant field".

What makes you a reference?  Bashing other people and causing distractions in whatever thread you decide to post in? LOL.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: spinn_MP on December 12, 2010, 12:55:48 AM
Quote
The Steorn effect is a "time variant field".

What makes you a reference?  Bashing other people and causing distractions in whatever thread you decide to post in? LOL.

GB

Yes. Lol, indeed... Piss off, if you don't have anything real to contribute to Steorn's claims....

FYI, this thing is public since 2006, so....

You may have missed "a few (tens of thousands of)" discussions, i think...
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 12, 2010, 01:13:37 AM
Yes. Lol, indeed... Piss off, if you don't have anything real to contribute to Steorn's claims....

FYI, this thing is public since 2006, so....

You may have missed "a few (tens of thousands of)" discussions, i think...

If you look back, then you'll see I've been a part of most of those discussions.  Steorn isn't anything new to me, as you may think.

Why don't you Piss off, because you're not contributing to this thread in any kind of positve way.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: spinn_MP on December 12, 2010, 01:19:55 AM
Sorry, GB.
I don't remember you from any of the previous Steorn sites.

Care to explain since when (in the past) you became an expert?

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: XS-NRG on December 12, 2010, 01:20:09 AM
Your doing it again  :-\
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: TinselKoala on December 12, 2010, 01:39:31 AM
Except for the single item of the magnetic bearings, just how are my final Orbette constructions and performances different from Steorn's?

You will recall, GB,  or maybe not, that Steorn never actually showed output from their generator sections...I did, that's a big difference.

You may recall, but with your holes in your memory, probably not, that Steorn claimed to be recharging a battery with their Orbo, but NEVER SHOWED this...I did, that's a big difference.

I showed Orbettes running off of batteries that they themselves charged. Steorn never did. I showed power graphs that CLEARLY show that Orbette uses less power when the rotor magnets are being accelerated than when they aren't...clearly showing that I have reproduced the key Orbo effect. Even Steorn has not been able to show this data. That's a big difference.

Rather than trying to figure out what Steorn did to FAIL to show you that they achieved an effect, perhaps you should pay more attention to my work, since I clearly AND REPRODUCIBLY show how to do it. Anyone who builds according to my design will be able to do anything that Steorn's Orbo is CLAIMED to do -- even those things that Steorn didn't show.

Including running a rotor for less energy per pulse than when the rotor's not there, and including producing an input energy integral that does not accumulate over time -- just like Steorn's.

You criticise my scope shots, apparently without looking at them ---- the early ones, when I was still trying for flat tops, are as flat as Steorn's, or even flatter. The ones in the trace I linked above aren't flat for a reason --- the shapes I show WORK BETTER for the Steorn Orbo effect. (In addition, the current trace is taken from the correct location, not one that is cut out of the circuit during the most interesting part of the cycle, when the magnets are approaching the cores and changing their inductance.)

Have you ever even considered what the Steorn flattopped traces mean....and have you ever considered that identical traces can be easily obtained from any ordinary pulse motor, as many experimenters here can confirm?

The flat-topped scope trace is just one of many red herrings in the Steorn saga -- keep chasing after it and you'll miss the real, tasty, fish.

(And anyone who spits out every digit their calculator displays, when inputting variables with only one or two or three significant digits...well, let's just say they are WRONG and leave it at that, because whatever number they quote is certainly NOT the true value of the result. Hopefully the thread at energeticforum has explained graphically to you why your use of the static equation for inductance is incorrect in this case, and hopefully you will research the topic of "significant digits" before you cite any more falsely precise calculations. Using the correct equation for the situation, and not falsely inflating your precision, will go a long way towards enhancing your credibility.)
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: TinselKoala on December 12, 2010, 01:41:35 AM
.doublepost sorry.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: void109 on December 13, 2010, 03:08:33 AM
Quote from: quarktoo
Furthermore, Joseph Leedskalnin wrapped two shorted coils around an inductor and proved that a magnetic field can be conserved without current flow. So if your statement that an inductor is an analog to mass in a mechanical system is true, then you can explain why there is no friction.
Could you provide a reference for that?  I'm trying to wrap my head around it, I'd happily replicate that experiment with more details :)

Thanks!

I'm sorry for quoting my previous quote, I just want to ping this thread again to see if anyone can point to any reference to the above claim.  My Google skills did not yield anything useful, and I have the inclination to believe the quoted user believes that, so there must be material citing this claim.

Has anyone heard this claim before even?  There's so much crap surrounding these topics its hard to pin point useful, relevant information much of the time.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 13, 2010, 07:55:02 AM
The Steorn effect is a "time variant field".

What makes you a reference?  Bashing other people and causing distractions in whatever thread you decide to post in? LOL.

GB

I couldn't resist Mental Block...

Time is the relative motion between two objects. Space is energy. Without both time and space, it is impossible for something to exist.

Now take the term you quoted from Steorn "time variant field". Why is it time variant? Because the field is being accelerated and decelerated. - Just like I said dumb ass.

How is that field accelerated? By the magnetic compression produced by coils shorted around magnets. - You can see them in the Orbo photos if you have eyes that see dumb ass.

Why does acceleration produce more energy? Because E=MC2 just Einstein said. Now even Einstein is calling you a dumb ass from his grave no less. No really!

Today I lost my dog so I rushed over to the local psychic and asked "Where is my dog"? The psychic said, "I see your dog in your garage." (And he was later found in the garage)

Suddenly out of nowhere, the psychic rubbed his hands through his hair and began messing it all up. Then in a series of spastic movements, he bent over and untied his shoes. After a short dramatic pause while staring at me through wild eyes, he said in a heavy German accent,  "Tell zee blöd named GravityBlock, to learn what E-MC2 means." Blöd, as I am sure you know better than most, is German for "dumb ass".

Then the psychic went over to his fax machine and this photo came out. What a magical little world it is for some people, huh? Merry Christmas dumb ass.

I love the sight of napalm on the web,

Quarktoo

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 13, 2010, 08:47:23 AM
I'm sorry for quoting my previous quote, I just want to ping this thread again to see if anyone can point to any reference to the above claim.  My Google skills did not yield anything useful, and I have the inclination to believe the quoted user believes that, so there must be material citing this claim.

Has anyone heard this claim before even?  There's so much crap surrounding these topics its hard to pin point useful, relevant information much of the time.

ATTACHED is a primer to a practical demonstration of AB effect.

You will need to take special note the coil/motor starting procedure. You have to send the coil start/charge  impulse through the core material from one side to the other. This splits the electron stream and traps the spin curl wave in the right place. That is the big secret to Leedskalnin's motor, Hubbards motor and a bunch of other stuff.

If you read the Seattle Intelligencer news paper account of Hubbard displaying his motor on the lake near Seattle, you will note how he had to strike a wire against an iron plate for nearly ten minutes to get the transformer up and running properly. As I recall, one of the attached papers also talks about the difficulty in getting it started in a similar fashion.

Quote
There's so much crap surrounding these topics its hard to pin point useful, relevant information much of the time.

That is because a cabal of trolls like GB work this site 24/7 and bury anything useful under a pile of stupid. You can watch it happen right after someone posts a helpful post that contains what people are trying to figure out. Remember their names. I keep a file and paste it into word. Most of the people here, are working here for a living.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: void109 on December 13, 2010, 08:09:16 PM
ATTACHED is a primer to a practical demonstration of AB effect.

You will need to take special note the coil/motor starting procedure. You have to send the coil start/charge  impulse through the core material from one side to the other. This splits the electron stream and traps the spin curl wave in the right place. That is the big secret to Leedskalnin's motor, Hubbards motor and a bunch of other stuff.

If you read the Seattle Intelligencer news paper account of Hubbard displaying his motor on the lake near Seattle, you will note how he had to strike a wire against an iron plate for nearly ten minutes to get the transformer up and running properly. As I recall, one of the attached papers also talks about the difficulty in getting it started in a similar fashion.

That is because a cabal of trolls like GB work this site 24/7 and bury anything useful under a pile of stupid. You can watch it happen right after someone posts a helpful post that contains what people are trying to figure out. Remember their names. I keep a file and paste it into word. Most of the people here, are working here for a living.

Thank you for that material!  I appreciate you getting back to me on that. :)
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: sigma16 on December 13, 2010, 08:26:53 PM
What methods are available to generate the spin curl wave?

What are some of the properties of a spin curl wave?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: gravityblock on December 14, 2010, 02:48:52 AM
ATTACHED is a primer to a practical demonstration of AB effect.

You will need to take special note the coil/motor starting procedure. You have to send the coil start/charge  impulse through the core material from one side to the other. This splits the electron stream and traps the spin curl wave in the right place. That is the big secret to Leedskalnin's motor, Hubbards motor and a bunch of other stuff.

This post, along with many other posts of this thread, was off-topic and was a total distraction to the main discussion of the original thread.  So, I renamed and moved this thread to an appropriate category to better reflect the off-topic postings.  In addition to this, it was moved into a category which is moderated in order to minimize the personal attacks, insults, and other non-sense associated with this discussion.  I will no longer be a part of this hi-jacked thread.

GB
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: sigma16 on December 14, 2010, 03:32:14 AM
So, let's here some more about spin curl waves!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 14, 2010, 05:41:50 AM
So, let's here some more about spin curl waves!

Unfortunately this would be the wrong thread since this thread is all about mass to atomic energy conversion through acceleration.

That being said, since GravityBlock's username description is "Aharonov–Bohm effect (Energy from the vacuum)" I'm sure he could tell you all about it due to the simple fact that spin curl waves are produced through Aharonov–Bohm effect.

Unfortunately he seems to be absent. Perhaps he is probably back to trying to find the secret code in sacred geometry or hidden in the story line of the movie "A Beautiful Mind".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_%28film%29

Then to top it off, once I disclosed how and why the orbo works, along with how to make a ferro nuclear magnetic resonance generator, GB renames the thread after ignoring and burying the info. under a pile of insult and disinfo. That would be parr for the course.

Finally to top off the deception, he blames the person he was trolling - nice! Interesting how GB seems to have enough rights on this site to moderate and rename threads huh???

In spite of their best efforts, this thread contains the info. that reveals how and why the Orbo works and another free energy device you can easily replicate.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 14, 2010, 06:03:47 PM
To the man with the Huge Cranium ,

Buddy , I really like you!! ( I could just squeeze you).

In a manly way (not Girly man ).

Off to study!!

Chet
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 14, 2010, 09:38:20 PM
To the man with the Huge Cranium ,

Buddy , I really like you!! ( I could just squeeze you).

In a manly way (not Girly man ).

Off to study!!

Chet

Dearest Chet,

I considered our relationship over when you lied to me, then suddenly broke up with me and banning for for the 7th time. After being boinked by you, I never want to have  again.

Sincerely,

More user names than I can remember
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 14, 2010, 09:52:42 PM
I often envy your smarts!
I think to myself geeeezzz ,what a gift!

And then I see it comes at a cost,somehow you have no real peace

You can't stop thinking,you have to learn to relax , chill,shut the brain off
You're thinking way to much, you'll pull a brain muscle!

Somehow you see me as ,multiple persons?

I am now and have always been Chet Kremens , My real name,I go by no monikers ,handles etc.

I am sorry If you feel I have offended you somehow,by being disingenuous

I really like your contributions,and have been struggling to understand them.

Chet

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 15, 2010, 11:18:09 AM
Speaking of your contributions!
The Marinov Motor,
seems like an old promise has been kept![by you]

can you share some of your understanding on this??
Please??
Thank you
Chet
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 15, 2010, 12:56:36 PM
Speaking of your contributions!
The Marinov Motor,
seems like an old promise has been kept![by you]

can you share some of your understanding on this??
Please??
Thank you
Chet

I kept my promise when I showed how you can polarize a chain of water molecules and experimentally demonstrate the length of time it takes to for a water molecule to rotate 180 degrees. As simple as the experiment was, nobody was smart enough to appreciate the beauty in the simplicity. - You evil lying worm!

I have most of what it takes on the shelf to prove what electricity is and to prove perpetual motion - that all there is, is perpetual motion. Problem is, most people don't have the abstract thinking skills to disconnect from their "local" perception of the universe.

ATTACHED is a nice paper on some aspects of the subject of EM:

Note - Page 6 mentions A-B effect and causality of fields?

Note - Page 7 how Hertz introduced velocity - acceleration?

Note - Page 8 how there must be two different photons? Just because something moves at the speed of light does not mean it is a photon. I posted something a few weeks ago about how a photon is NOT the force carrier of the electromagnetic field as is postulated. There is another particle and that particle is an empty spaceand subsequent shock wave created during mass to atomic energy conversion.

Note  - Page 11 how he tries to introduce imaginary numbers to validate the equations? Maybe that results from an imaginary understanding of electricity? They do after all still regard electricity as either a phenomenon or a story that can't hold water. ...and maybe all that comes from an imaginary understanding of what a particle is? Me thinks that.

Note - Page 13 The closing remarks are precious. He is a smart person that has done his homework correcting other people's homework. Until people understand that electricity is mass to atomic energy conversion, until people understand that the time function must be a part of every physical law, THE PHYSICAL MODELS ARE ALREADY NEBULOUS.

A science paper that shows the mistakes is every bit as important than one that shows an effect or creates a physical law. Had people like Einstein been ignored, had Rockafeller not taken control of academics, we would probably not be in this mess.

When you hide the effects of acceleration to prevent people from understanding free energy devices, you need a lot of glue made of bullshit to keep that physical house of cards from falling. Imaginary numbers and non relative equations don't make good glue.

It seems insane to create new areas of science rather than correct the mistakes of the past. It does not disrespect the scientist of the past, it simply acknowledges that knowledge is also relative. As time progresses, knowledge is squared unless the corporate resistance of personal greed or ego are introduced into the human experiment. The greed of money and ego killed the hundredth monkey of humanity.

Who will be the one to show how Rife split a light wave and explain the double slit experiment relegating quantum science to the trash bin and exposing those that bought into it as insane believers? Would the insane believers listen? Try telling a magical thinking religious person that God is the universe. Then offer experimental proof of that and see if it changes anything.

On a larger canvas, me thinks the reason we can only account for 4.5% of the light in the universe is because there is a .5% measurement error and we live in a two octave resonance of the universal wave. I suspect the universe is not as big as they claim, but we are actually smaller then they realize. It is all relative in a universal transmission with at least 20 gears. There was no big bang, we live in a solid mass that varies in time and most of that time exceeds the local speed of light in two directions.

Tesla made a device (dark rings) that ABSORBED LIGHT! ABSORBED LIGHT! ABSORBED LIGHT! ABSORBED LIGHT!

Um, did you see that absorbed light part?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 15, 2010, 03:14:51 PM
Envy.......................
is that a sin?

Yes Perpetual motion is all there is in this universe.

Q
Quote
Try telling a magical thinking religious person that God is the universe
-------------------
I agree,but my universe has lips!

------------------
Absorbes light??
Holy crap?? How? Consumes?

Chet
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: sigma16 on December 15, 2010, 03:56:33 PM
When Paul Dirac (physicist) postulate "virtual photons", he said they were "virtual" so as not to violate conservation of energy and get a noose around his neck.


Ever hear of anti-photons?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 15, 2010, 04:07:51 PM
Physicist claim that for every particle, there is an anti-particle. This is not exactly true. Every particle is composed on both a light and dark waves. Since the dark wave absorbs light and energy, it is invisible to most instruments and the consciousness of most scientists. Without that understanding, we are all just a bunch of half wits.

The dark wave absorbs light. The dark wave is sucking light and energy from the particle at the speed of light.

...and conversely
 
The light wave emits light. The light wave is emitting light and energy from the particle at the speed of light.

You can't have "some"-thing without having "some" of both things. It is the ying and the yang of the universe. You exist where those two cone shaped spiral waves come together and form particles. Particles form atoms. Atoms form molecules. Molecules form matter. Matter forms mass. Mass forms scientists and paper. And finally, scientist write stuff on that paper which they exchange for more paper called money. Unfortunately, most are paid exactly twice what they earned.

Leedscalnin's coil models those two waves that form a particle. It magnetically models and separates the light and dark wave in a fe inductor. Energy is flowing through that space and that energy is also spinning. The imbalance of the negatively charged electricity created when it charged the coils and inductor, creates a vacuum and takes that space out of equilibrium. The space is shielded to some degree by a force field that is created. The field will exist in this state until an equal and opposite force is applied.

A good analogy would be: The matter of the known universe is like the dielectric of a capacitor. Chet is made of that plastic, slimy, oily, non-conductive film that separates the two conductors that carry two opposite charges.

EDIT

Electrons come in and out of existence because they bounce back and forth on those two oppositely charged  springs of light and dark energy.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 15, 2010, 04:16:48 PM
When Paul Dirac (physicist) postulate "virtual photons", he said they were "virtual" so as not to violate conservation of energy and get a noose around his neck.


Ever hear of anti-photons?

To state that there is an anti-photon would, I think, be comparing mass to time. They are apples and oranges. A photon possesses both waves, an anti-photon is just reversed time. Dark waves can be replicated in a gas discharge tube.

My guess is that in order to partly hide the existence of free energy devices, Rockafeller's academic system divided the light energy from the dark energy. The light energy he called physics, the dark energy... Rockafeller naturally kept for himself. The "evening and the morning" were the genesis of the Standard Oil Co.

In the evening the Sun is going away from you, in the morning the Sun is coming toward you. From the prospective of the Earth, both Suns are present at all times. I think the Torah teaches a lot more science than people are seeing.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 15, 2010, 11:55:28 PM
Sir,
This is also being discussed here,

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=457.msg7855;topicseen#msg7855

And only because of your recent contribution !
I would be honored if you at least looked in.

Thank you
Chet
PS
And you really should start to get your head around a visit to William,He could use the support of a man who understands as you do.
He was most appreciative of my enthusiasm ,and I felt bad that I couldn't share more with him [because of my ignorance on the topic] ,as he was quite eager to talk!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 16, 2010, 12:37:12 AM
Sir,
This is also being discussed here,

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=457.msg7855;topicseen#msg7855

And only because of your recent contribution !
I would be honored if you at least looked in.

Thank you
Chet
PS
And you really should start to get your head around a visit to William,He could use the support of a man who understands as you do.
He was most appreciative of my enthusiasm ,and I felt bad that I couldn't share more with him [because of my ignorance on the topic] ,as he was quite eager to talk!

Chet,

You can  lose the sir thing. You can't replace a broken promise with placation.

As for me, I have my ideas regarding the physical world of science but I am fully aware that my science, is the fringiest science on the web and to be considered for amusement purposes only.

That being said, I also think some aspects of science have entered the twilight zone with electromagnetics and particle science leading the charge. Punny or funny?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 16, 2010, 01:58:51 AM
I call you Sir, because I never know who I'm talking to with you.[freaks me out,I don't know why?]
Your like a freakin OU Sybil??,man of la moniker?
---------------

No Doubt I am clueless when you start to get all Protony and light speedy, The accelleration /cavitation deal makes complete sense , But being on the fringe seems to be your forte,and you wear it well!

You really seem impressed with Marinov,are the experiences shared by the auther of those PDF's you posted reproducible?

And if so ,whats up with that? can this Marinov motor go OU?
Why would it not be jumped all over by this community?

Chet
PS
What promise are you talking about?? [terror grips Chet]

Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 16, 2010, 02:43:46 AM
No Doubt I am clueless when you start to get all Protony and light speedy, The accelleration /cavitation deal makes complete sense , But being on the fringe seems to be your forte,and you wear it well!

You really seem impressed with Marinov,are the experiences shared by the auther of those PDF's you posted reproducible?

And if so ,whats up with that? can this Marinov motor go OU?
Why would it not be jumped all over by this community?

Chet
PS
What promise are you talking about?? [terror grips Chet]

Marinov's perpetual mobile was peer reviewed after he died by his detractors. In the original paper, there was a heart felt acknowledgment by his peers at Berlin University that Marinov was right and they were sincerely sorry they did not listen to him. [paraphrasing]

It was reproduced AND peer reviewed by PHD's in a written and published paper by people that once mocked him. That speaks volumes since they had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing that.

Quote
And if so ,whats up with that? can this Marinov motor go OU?

Of course it can. Marinov used the same principle used in the horseshoe magnets on the Methernitha which he fully understood. A-B effect. Cavitation of an electron stream ring a bell? The smaller portable unit used a bar magnet which can be clearly seen in the photo but the split and polarization is the same.

Quote
Why would it not be jumped all over by this community?

Because the community is comprised of retards, spooks and me. Both the retards and spooks line up to bend me over when I post.

Seriously Ramset, enough with the lubrication. When I sent you that unreleased photo of Meyer's PWM with FU written on it so you could not reverse engineer it, that pretty much expressed my feelings. I have a complete schematic of Meyer's tube cell driver, including the canceled check and invoice for the boards. I was not wrong during that flame war.

Maybe if stupid was not allowed to take control of the Earth with the help of... Well anyway, enough with the lubrication. In spite of your best efforts, I will never turn gay or trust you again.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 16, 2010, 03:02:20 AM
Douche bag!!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 16, 2010, 03:09:18 AM
Douche bag!!

That's more like it. Honest, good and manly and filled with hate!
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 17, 2010, 06:47:00 PM
Did you sprout from the universe ,or did you have a mother?

She must have been a wonderful woman to put up with you!
Behave yourself ,you don't need cus words or "nasty" to get your point accross!
You don't even need half your brain "yet"!

More on AB would really be appreciated[really]
Chet
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 17, 2010, 07:13:52 PM
Did you sprout from the universe ,or did you have a mother?

She must have been a wonderful woman to put up with you!
Behave yourself ,you don't need cus words or "nasty" to get your point accross!
You don't even need half your brain "yet"!

More on AB would really be appreciated[really]
Chet

Or maybe Chet... she was a catty bitch and now I carry that genetic defect?

Is "bitch" a cuss word?
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 17, 2010, 07:22:57 PM
We call them character flaws,they can be worked on[almost fixed].

Chet
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ramset on December 18, 2010, 09:41:15 PM
GeeeeZZZZzzzzzzz

You guys broke up poynts place!!!

Rufeans!!
Actually he has issues with the site right now!

Chet
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: quarktoo on December 18, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Yeah... that's what's going on... You seriously crack me up Ramset.
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ATOM1 on June 10, 2015, 05:31:46 PM
Hello !

Good to see gravity block is on the ball ! But all these fractions in equations to study an energy stream theory can bend logic into a cloud of entropic uncertainty ????? Electron structure is most important an electron is 2.2 trillionths the size of it nuclei so include a large nuclei and the electron structure expands but does not increase in mass ! An electron will have 2.2 trillion x y components and is why an electron can be split as y into anti electron. Please consider the electron as like string with its MF as a polarised position between x and y ... If this was not the case than a magnetic field would destroy it self and current would never pass..... The relationship of harmonics along a MF field line is most important to work out inductance over resistance if you wish for an instant transfer of energy. The way to go is forget old theory as a path to see what is truly happening as a reactive circuit and one that has a solid magnet in it will change the laws of resistance. To value the finite resistance one would have to include the earths magnetic field and its effect on all current passing if you wish to finally off set resistance to a point of 100% !

I have a small 500watt universal motor that operates at 4000 rpm at 00.1v over 00.01 amps it works by a reflection of coherence meaning the coils inside the motor emit a field function stimulated by the atoms surrounding the free electrons in the coils... The electrical energy being received into the coils is equal to the electrical field surrounding the system provided by the magnetic field of the earth...

Unity in terms that you are measuring will have a delay component in the equations and is why you find all these fractions in the numbers ! Also it is good to consider what is happening at the plank level and particle entanglements to help offset resistance in coil arrangements as quantum entanglement can affect a secondary coil that is at 2.2 trillion miles from its primary coil without a time delay or a loss of energy !

Throw that text book away ! Start again with one coulomb of electrons at one amp at one volt at one farad transfer this as energy from one coil to another at unity and without a time delay or energy loss ! The result can only happen if you use silver coated copper wire in the primary coil and iron wire with copper silver coated wire wound round it as the secondary coil !

Space is expanding so use it even the space between electrons in a current is expanding meaning that the distance between electrons will all be different ! This also is very important as the outer galaxies are moving at a faster rate of speed and is the same with all moving currents it is there for obvious that if one was to increase the rate of expansion a decrease in energy to transfer electrons would be the end result.. Formula for this is not available so it has to be written but not in the old way as ohms law does not include quantum entanglement or the expansion of space between electrons in a reactive circuit.

It also possible that our universe and all its mass share only one electron divide time and space into infinity and an electron can appear to be just one electron divided into one universe and would make the study of energy a single unit over time and space.. For a universe to come into being from nothing it would have to convert nothing into something and than bang ! I place my bet that there is only one electron !

regards

ATOM 1



             




 



   








         
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ATOM1 on June 18, 2015, 02:13:40 AM
o h dear no agreement on the maths or formula but they got more coils coming hahahahah technical spaghetti of un readable fraction obsolete mumbo jumbo ! So this technology is dependent on the fraction inverted over loop step up step dome this and that hahahah

Come on you can do better than that ! Where is the set formula to split the stream ????? An electron can be split, that is not new and it does not mean energy has be generated .... What is the dam point of all this technical data dumping ???? After you read it that read the disagreements it becomes a pile of crap.

Oh we have copied and confirmed and powered nothing hahaha Its so cleaver no one can understand it only the one who has written it and he will always defend it even if it don't equate to a standard logic ..

So you want to split the energy stream unzip the fabric of space and time ! Sorry mission impossible ! The grand-dio  dreams of lab experimentation's kids with toys and a bunch of academic money crunching mind bending fractional fanatics .... There is one universe not 1.03547548947578 divided in A + B quad static bull shit ...

You are splitting an energy stream it has mass this mass is moving at speed split it and then the mass is divided in tow streams now you want the mass to attempt to breach the speed of light to increase the kinetic energy .... Please don't include quantum entanglement your not using photons ................ Even if you did this through a split gate and observe extra amounts of electrons hitting a plat ect means its still only the same amount of electrons there is no real increase in mass ..... quantum jumping is how electrons exist around its atomic nuclei.

Divide space and time into infinity HOW MUCH SPACE AND TIME IS THERE ???? How many electrons is there are they all just one electron jumping around because time and space can be divided into infinity ? Try and catch just one electron stop it spinning isolate it and finally see what it truly is .... Than split it ! This way you don't have a problem trying to see the dam thing .......

The elusion is time and space is just tow points in time so forget that train going into the tunnel it does not turn into two trains but only creating a reflection of only one train .... Its known as the cosmic joker !!!! You need a big bang to create just one electron !!!! OK !!!!
Do you think you are GOD ???? Or Christ feeding the 5000 ???? Your basket is built of fractions ????? That would mean that Christ pulled out an ever decreasing size of fish or bread its the same stupid experiment that you are trying to achieve with a dumb ass electron.

You got no chance its not real energy its not real mass ! Only a master like Christ can ever do such a thing ! It is a super natural event you are looking for not one made in a lab ...... Now show me your split energy stream powering two trains or lifting two weights of the same mass ... Not two stupid light bulbs I want you to lift weight not liberating empty mass like a photon .....

We know old albert is right but he did not know of neutrinos or the harmonics of light ...... Apart from that you will never beat him not ever ...


ATOM1









 



















   



   
Title: Re: Splitting the electron stream
Post by: ATOM1 on June 19, 2015, 10:06:21 PM
All electrical instrumentation is affected by stray voltage scalar waves and so many interaction with everything known and unknown .... Conformation  only  indirect measurements from non electrical connections so try some kinetic final testing and see if will match the result ??? I very much doubt it ! When an energy is producing an OU result from electricity it will always affect the harmonic boundaries of the mass .. Try and take into account 5ths in the harmonic they set oscillations that trick the instruments into making the wrong results...

You can never except the results from instruments not designed to isolate such effects that you are looking for ! Sorry but its all quantum mechanics reactive circuits that contradict ohms law not me .............
 
Without a formula to start with than you are left with a map of results that can never be referenced in such a way to confirm you have achieved the base formula. Even a set of capacitors will show extra voltage but the overall pressure of the system is equal to what charge you started with if you know what you are doing ect .................................

You have to lift something or turn a heavy wheel as an indirect measurement ! But without a formula for the energy you are looking for than how do you know what you have found ?? If you drill for oil and hit gas have you found oil ?

Isolate the natural combined harmonic with the OS work out the number of particles in its wave and isolate them by reactance ! Make them hit a silver plate work out the electrons being shifted than you will know the real mass in the harmonic wave form ........................ It has to be particle physics not electronics or stupid microprocessors !

I can tel you are hoping to find that the atoms are going to power up the function hahahah Only I can do that hahahah you need my unified field oscillator for that as there is no other way ..................................................................

Leave those atoms alone its not legal to mess with atomic energy ok !!!! What is you get a runaway train effect where all mass turns into light ??? pendulums my friend ! Get lots of them set them up swinging  and watch them all end up in unity .... Work out the numbers and you find some free energy but why ????

Stick to this and look at the electrons that are free like independent pendulums ! Do I really have to give the game away hahahah  Leave the atoms alone in all your equations don't even bother with them .. Group up the electrons with magnets and hit them like pendulums releasing real force to push something .......

OR CHOSE ANOTHER FORMULA ! Hit and miss oh look the volts are goingg up we are nearly there hahah sorry but that is not how to do it ! Either way leave the ATOMS ALONE ...

ATOM1