A big shout-out to Mr. fake talker himself, Atom1:

No response to the following, and no surprise at all there is no response:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Atom1:

I will answer your question, and I am also asking you a question myself:

Please tell us how a coil works.  Please write up a description of about five or six full paragraphs minimum in your own words in order to demonstrate your technical competency to us.

Quote<blockquote>I asked you a question show me your formula of how an electron is created from nothing ?</blockquote>
The answer to your question is that there is no formula.

Are you not satisfied with my answer?  Okay fine, then please answer your question for us so that we can all be enlightened.  I would suggest to you that your answer be at least three or four full paragraphs in length, preferably more.

Looking forward to reading your two comprehensive answers to the two questions posted above.  This is an opportunity for you to teach us and enlighten us.

Looking forward to reading your insights.

MileHigh

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

People like this guy Atom1 make a total mockery of this forum because they are little more than a random number generator that is used to select snippets of tech phrases and string them together into what sounds like a technical discussion.  In reality it's just fake stream-of-tech-consciousness mumbo jumbo talk.

Like I said before, this guy will crank out very verbose nonsense postings until he burns out then disappears.  It's an insult to the people that are sincerely trying to do experiments and to learn something.

And of course I will mention my pal SkyWatcher123 that said this, "Hi emjunkie, are you just now coming to the conclusion that there is a malevolent et/interdimensional presence messing with humanity.  They are a minority though in the universe, so they will not be harassing humanity for ever, thank god.  peace love light"

I will talk tough again and say that he is a little chicken shit and he also never came back to respond and for all I know he is still hiding his head under a pillow somewhere.

SkyWatcher123:  Stop your stupid nonsensical bullshit where you try to impugn the character of others in a ridiculous silly immature drive-by posting.  You are spineless because you are probably reading this and you don't have the guts to come back here and apologize.

Sorry for this posting being somewhat of a diversion, but sometimes people need to be called out for their bad and/or stupid behaviour.

MileHigh

AC,

Surely you see some difference between a circuit such as you describe and someone claiming to have free energy devices.

I have always believed and adhered to the idea that having a truly open mind actually means always being cognizant of the fact that anything you "know" may be wrong.  However, one cannot go thru life without some convictions regarding what is the reality being dealt with at any given point in time, so probabilities must be assigned to everything based upon perceptions or any data presented, both real time and historical.

EMJ claims to have free energy devices.  Based solely upon what he has presented as his "findings", the assigned probability is very low. 

PW

The probability that EMJ has a working free energy device is indiscernible from zero.

I agree a separate thread would be better.

Tinman:

I looked at your clip and you are in very similar territory.  You add the light bulb load and the power draw goes down.  All that you have done is change the impedance of the circuit from the vantage point of the battery.  You added the light bulb load, the impedance of the circuit went up, and the current consumption went down.  Under no load your motor was drawing about 23 watts.  That's a lot of watts that are being turned into heat.  When you change the impedance of the circuit there are more than enough watts available to run the motor and light the light bulb.  The exercise to do when you add the light bulb load is to measure the power draw from the battery, and them measure the power dissipation in the various components of the circuit.  Everything will add up and balance so that the power draw from the battery equals the total power dissipated in the various components of the circuit.

Your big "flaw" when you experiment is to almost always jump to the conclusion that your setup is somehow different and "normal rules don't apply."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In your bearing motor thread you say that somewhere.  It simply does not work like that.  Your setups always act perfectly normally.  The challenge for you is to simply measure properly and understand what is going on.  You can't invent "conventional rules don't apply to my circuit" short-cuts in logic to arrive at what you believe is a satisfactory conclusion.

MileHigh

MH
Once again you have got it all wrong.
How exactly dose your conclusion explain as to how more power is being dissipated across the globe than what is being delivered to the circuit/motor?.

Tinman,

Very interesting!  Why don't you start a thread on this gizmo?  Even if you don't want to reveal the innards, measurements could be discussed.

I have a question regarding the video.  At 3:30 or so, you appear to be running the motor with the gen switched off (no load...) and show a motor current draw of 2.07 amps.  Then later on in the video, at 6:27, it appears your are again running the motor with the gen switched off (no load...) but now the motor appears to only be drawing .222 amps.

Am I seeing this correctly or have I missed something?

PW

 

You mean 2.222 amp's im guessing?. When the light is switched on,the motor bogs down(as can be heard in the video),and the RPM's have decreased. When the light is switched off,the motors current draw go's up,and slowly drops until the motor has once again reached running speed. The 2.07 amp current draw you see at 3.30 is the motor running at full speed(no load),and the current draw of 2.222 you see at 6.27 is the motor picking up speed after the load is disconnected. That current draw will drop back down to the 2.07amps once the motor has once again reached running speed.

I will try to find the time tomorrow to look at your clip a second time and take notes.  You are presenting the data, you owe your audience a summary of the results either in the clip itself or when you post the clips.

You know I have this issue with you.  The last time I recall you posting a schematic is was half-assed and incomplete.  Work on presenting your data and your results and your conclusions in a more professional manner.  I am fully aware that if you do a clip and it's a one-shot deal then it may not be so easy to do that during the clip unless you prepare yourself before the clip so that you can include your results and conclusions in the clip itself.  If you don't prepare yourself before you make the clip then there is nothing stopping you from presenting your data, results, and your conclusions in the text of the posting that includes the link to the clip.  This is just a common courtesy for your audience.  Like I told you before, we are not in your "bubble" and "inside you" when you make a clip.  Work on improving your presentations and extend a common professional courtesy to your audience.  That will make things much much clearer.

You mean 2.222 amp's im guessing?. When the light is switched on,the motor bogs down(as can be heard in the video),and the RPM's have decreased. When the light is switched off,the motors current draw go's up,and slowly drops until the motor has once again reached running speed. The 2.07 amp current draw you see at 3.30 is the motor running at full speed(no load),and the current draw of 2.222 you see at 6.27 is the motor picking up speed after the load is disconnected. That current draw will drop back down to the 2.07amps once the motor has once again reached running speed.

Yeah, like I said, 2.222 amps.

Cleaned the glasses and had another look...

PW

Yeah, like I said, 2.222 amps.

Cleaned the glasses and had another look...

PW

PW
Your post says .222 amps,not 2.222 amps lol.
That is what had me confused.