Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

TK,

Have you seen the battery voltage wave forms? They are nutsoid! There is no way to get a proper power in measurement with a battery voltage wave form oscillating like that. It should be nice and solid, with perhaps some sagging and ripple, but not with 60V or so of sinusoidal swing at Fo.

.99

Dear Rosemary , congratulations on your successful demo . There are still unanswered questions , but to me , it looks like a fait accompli . Not a lot of development work will be needed here to develop useful device . If you can make 40 watts of heat , 1Kw is just a case of scaling up . Or it could be made to run a light bulb with an inductive filament . The pulse driver circuit can be cheap , and eventually , special Mosfets can be developed to optimise the effect .A door has been opened to a whole host of possibilities . Nd the icing on the cake is that it is open source . Renewed hope is given to all those working on back EMF type devices . Rosemary , I hope you quickly receive the rewards you so richly deserve .

And Harti, btw

We'll post a youtube video of the proceedings sometime soon.  I'll send you the link and post it here.

Thanks guys,
Rosemary

So what you are claiming is no wattage loss to the battery...

I believe this should say that basically the same tests that Tinsel Kola has asked for have already been done correct me if wrong?

I don't know for fact 100% mathematically weather this is overunity or not but I will say that as the tests stand this device could improve even our most energy efficient electric water heaters!

Which no matter how you peer into this peer review is a step in the correct direction!

Hello Everyone,

TinselKoala wonders...

Quote:

“Well... congratulations on getting such a comprehensive report out so very quickly. One almost wonders whether the report had been prepared in advance of the actual demonstration.”

I was wondering the same myself and blog entry #88 begins:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/

Quote:
“Wednesday, March 9, 2011
88 - nearly there
Dear Reader,

Just a short note to let you know that the report is nearly finalised. Hopefully we can get this ready and printed for tomorrow. I need to send a couple of copies out for preview to a few people and then - hopefully by Saturday - we'll have the finished product.”

So yes, the report was probably finished by Thursday and was going to be published after the demonstration, which now appears to be a publicity stunt to make people pay attention to the report. It most assuredly does not have results “from” the demonstration if it was prepared in advance!

So lets have a look at the report...

Of note here to me is “5 MOSFET transistors in parallel”

All of the circuit components specifications are given EXCEPT:

Function Generator and 6x12V batteries – Raylite Silver Calcium.

This is very strange, why would you omit the specifications of such vital circuit components and yet provide the others ?

For example, the Raylite batteries sold by Battery Centre list this page for Raylite Silver Calcium cells:

http://www.batterycentre.co.za/fnbSpec02/b-spec.asp?id=3

and this page for the features and benefits of this technology:

http://www.batterycentre.co.za/SilverCalciumBattery.htm

So which model of 12V silver calcium cell did Battery Centre give you ? It will say the model number on the casing

Anomalies 4.2 gets interesting:

4.2 When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.

And figure 4 text:

Fig 4: Evidence of ringing for a period of 2.7 minutes. No evident variation in amplitude of oscillation. Channel 1: Rshunt, Channel 2: batteries, Channel 3: gate, Channel D: math trace - product of Channels 1 & 2.

So, you freely admit that parasitic inductance is a well known consequence of MOSFET's connected in parallel, that this is undesirable for switching applications, and are traditionally factored out of the circuitry.

What you fail to mention is parasitic capacitance, which when combined with parasitic inductance forms resonant circuits that lead to ringing and EMI.

Don't believe me ?

http://www.en-genius.net/site/zones/rlcZONE/technical_notes/rlct_072108

and here is the PDF download:

http://www.en-genius.net/includes/files/rlct_072108.pdf

Estimating Parasitic Inductance and Capacitance
by Ted Rees, Intersil Corporation

There are many electronic design cases where parasitic inductance and/or parasitic capacitance are significant elements that restrict circuit performance. Parasitic inductance and capacitance are defined as the inductance and capacitance primarily of the traces that connect components together. Given an applied voltage, the parasitic inductance limits the rate at which the current can change. Given an applied current, the parasitic capacitance limits the rate at which the voltage can change. Taken together, the parasitic components form resonant circuits that lead to ringing and EMI. Frequently the physical size of the parasitic elements is so small that they can not be easily measured, so it's useful to be able to calculate approximately how much parasitic capacitance and inductance are associated with a specific layout.

Maybe you should contact Ted Rees and ask him to evaluate your circuit

Then we have your statement in Fig.4 about evidence of ringing for 2.7 minutes, which also happens to be:

“On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz.”

So when we also combine this with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude

and note that you never refer to what Amplitude you are measuring, and paying particular attention to the section:

Ambiguity

In general, the use of peak amplitude is simple and unambiguous only for symmetric periodic waves, like a sine wave, a square wave, or a triangular wave. For an asymmetric wave (periodic pulses in one direction, for example), the peak amplitude becomes ambiguous. This is because the value is different depending on whether the maximum positive signal is measured relative to the mean, the maximum negative signal is measured relative to the mean, or the maximum positive signal is measured relative to the maximum negative signal (the peak-to-peak amplitude) and then divided by two. In electrical engineering, the usual solution to this ambiguity is to measure the amplitude from a defined reference potential (such as ground or 0V). Strictly speaking, this is no longer amplitude since there is the possibility that a constant (DC component) is included in the measurement.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are running a DC circuit...

It looks like you have not considered or addressed any of the issues mentioned above.

Ok, so lets look at something you have considered:

You claim infinite COP. This basically means you have achieved overunity and can produce more energy from a process than you have put in to “enable” it.

You so far seem very reluctant to even discuss using little batteries to conclusively prove your thesis. Using 12V Lead Acid type batteries with massive Amp Hour capacity is quite frankly ridiculous in an application that has such relatively little power draw requirements.

Were you to hook up some much smaller Amp Hour batteries in series then it would very soon become obvious whether the current returning to the batteries was greater than the current being drawn from them. Leave the circuit running constantly for months and months and if it keeps going then there is a good chance you have achieved what you have claimed.

Using 6off 12V minimum 40 Amp hour batteries measured at 20 hour Rate in series only serves to hide the actual processes occurring by making the energy involved in the circuit operation significantly small in comparison to the total energy source available for the system.

If you are reluctant to prove your circuit works as you claim using this method of performing all the calculations within the system itself rather than from theoretical assumptions then there is another option.

Keep your 6 off 12V huge amp hour batteries and simply add on more circuits and more circuits and more circuits and more circuits and more circuits... you get the idea...

If your claims are correct then you have achieved exponential energy growth and you can provide power for the entire world off 6 car batteries.

I currently believe the reason you have not performed either of these two fool proof methods of proving your technology is because you cannot. It is so obvious to do these tests that to avoid even discussing the possibility is a massive red flag.

Furthermore, I fully expect you to completely ignore my questions and requests for clarification and proof based on your previous writings and replies and ignorings of others who have requested same.

However your complete disregard for the scientific method, obvious conclusive proofing methods, and theoretical cherry picking of what fits your thesis is evidence that you will see me as a negative detractor and refuse to engage me on those grounds.

I want to believe in you and your work, but the evidence you have presented prohibits that possibility at present, until you have openly and conclusively addressed the concerns of the community, and provided proof!

RM

P.S. Its a bit rich ltseung888 to hijack Rosie's thread, post your work here, direct everyone to discuss it on your own forum, and then request that everyone leaves this thread to Rosie. You that desperate for traffic ? Surely your work demands attention, not begs for it... ??

Remember what craze there was about WM2D. Here this is a similar situation but in electricity. WM2D turned out to be very useful for certain things although for other it has subtle flaws. I think PSpice is more sophisticated because it was paid for by the government initially then business had picked it up and today it's a major tool in every major university where theory of electricity is being taught. I learned that recently and I was astounded how many important things are only kept withing certain communities. Same was my experience with LaTeX. A friend was telling me for years to start using it but somehow it did not seem appealing initially. Now that's the main editor I'm using and you can see that actascientiae.org/v is LaTeX enhanced (lack of LaTeX is a major deficiency here in the OU.om forum). Now, speaking of PSpice, I was amazed to observe that it has only been mentioned occasionally in this forum despite the vigorous discussions taking place regarding electrical devices.

@Pirate88179,

I disagree. That bodies heavier than air can fly is immediately obvious. Look at the birds. Birds have flown for centuries in the air and they are heavier than air. That achievement of Wright brothers that is pushed so hard to justify suppressed innovations is a no good example. It is foreseeable and I believe it has been foisted on the public exactly by the powers that be that suppress the really important controversial achievements. Manipulations are subtle, you know, and sometimes the most plausible are the nastiest.