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

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?  (Read 125713 times)

Offline memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #165 on: December 08, 2015, 09:01:03 PM »
Yes, he made the CLAIM but did not back it up with proper measurement or analysis.

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #166 on: December 08, 2015, 09:07:40 PM »



  I see Tinman's comments are still there,bit more diplomacy required MileHigh.

Offline jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #167 on: December 08, 2015, 09:32:08 PM »
Yes, he made the CLAIM but did not back it up with proper measurement or analysis.


 What measurement and analysys he did make was backed up by the fact that he disregarded the excess energy still stored in that hybrid capacitor. And even given that his numbers still come out on top. Now lets mention the cost to produce each. Now we have a problem Huston. pound for pound his setup will always win because his methods of production vastly outweigh the costs of lithium ion. And that is a winner in my mind. Not only that is the benefit that his design as shown is not poisonous to us or the environment.... Can lithium Ion claim that?


 And by the way in all courts that I have known it isn't the burden of proof on the claimant it is the burden of proof on the accuser. You make a claim, "he is misleading people". Then prove it or get off the soapbox. Watch his other videos about producing all the components and try it yourself. Do the scientific analysis as accurately as you want and quit this crap. You prove he is misleading people! Not by looking at a video meant to inspire experimentation but actually build the thing. Otherwise he has no intention of helping trolls. And that is exactly what I see here.. MH trolling him not from doing it but sitting back and spouting BS about this and that.


 The whole aim for him is to inspire others to do, not talk crap behind his back. If there is no valid concept here for you then move on and let it go. Is it wrong of him to inspire others to have fun while experimenting and doing the experiments? No way.. is it wrong for you and others to mock him and call him names when hes has shown what he has done? YES! It's no wonder he hasn't come to these boards. Not because he doesn't believe in these forums and technologies but because there is always a few out there that take all the fun out of experimenting and finding something of interest to inspire others to get that same excitement out of it. He wants others to experiment and yes if it comes down to it he will test it scientifically when it is appropriate ie like selling it to a manufacturer like Tesla or other companies. You and the others are not funding his work. You have nothing invested other then watching a rough video to present rough calculations to see how it stacks up to the current technology. And yet you profess he is misleading people. PROVE IT! The burden is on you not him.


 If he completed the test it would have made the calculation more in his favor yet you guys don't understand that do you? Even with that and even if he missed the mark by 50 percent or even 70 it still would have been better then the lithium ion battery with way less material used and all of the safety the materials he uses provides.

Offline jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #168 on: December 08, 2015, 09:46:38 PM »
  Lets look at a similar device the lithium ion capacitor:


 "A lithium-ion capacitor is a hybrid electrochemical energy storage device which combines the intercalation mechanism of a lithium ion battery with the cathode of an electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC). The packaged energy density of an LIC is approximately 20 Wh/kg generally four times higher than an EDLC and five times lower than a lithium ion battery. The power density however has been shown to match that of EDLCs able to completely discharge in seconds.[1] The negative electrode (cathode) often employs activated carbon material at which charges are stored in an electric double layer that is developed at the interface between the carbon and the electrolyte.


The positive electrode (anode) was originally made with lithium titanate oxide, but is now more commonly made with graphitic carbon material to maximize energy density. The graphitic electrode potential initially at -0.1 Volts versus SHE (standard hydrogen electrode) is lowered further to -2.8V by the intercalation of lithium ions. This process step is referred to as doping and often takes place in the device between the anode and a sacrificial lithium electrode. The pre-doping process is critical to the device functioning as it can significantly affect the development of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase layer. Doping the anode lowers the anode potential and leads to a higher output voltage of the capacitor. Typically, output voltages for LICs are in the range of 3.8–4.0 V but are limited to a lower voltage of 1.8-2.2Volts. If the voltage is brought any lower lithium ions will deintercalate more rapidly than they can be restored during normal use. Like EDLCs, LIC voltages vary linearly adding to complications integrating them into systems which have power electronics that expect the more stable voltage of batteries. As a consequence, LICs have a high energy density, which varies with the square of the voltage. The capacitance of the anode is several orders of magnitude larger than that of the cathode. As a result, the change of the anode potential during charge and discharge is much smaller than the change in the cathode potential.


The electrolyte used in an LIC is a lithium-ion salt solution that can be combined with other organic components and is generally identical to that used in lithium ion batteries.


A separator prevents direct electrical contact between anode and cathode."


"Batteries, EDLC and LICs all have their own properties, which make them suitable for specific applications. The lithium-ion capacitors have a higher power density as compared to batteries, and LIC’s are safer in use than LIBs, in which thermal runaway reactions may occur. Compared to the electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC), the LIC has a higher output voltage. They have similar power densities, but energy density of an LIC is much higher.


The Ragone plot (figure 1), shows that the lithium-ion capacitor combines the high energy of LIBs with the high power density of EDLC’s.


Cycle life performance of LICs is much better than batteries and is similar to EDLCs."


 Omg what did it say?


"""""""""""""The lithium-ion capacitors have a higher power density as compared to batteries"""""""""""""""""

 Omg the sky is falling....

 So maybe he is onto something without the use of lithium and lithium ions for current boosting. Just maybe he has a novel idea that worked. And worked way better then using toxic chemicals and exotic metals.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #169 on: December 08, 2015, 10:03:10 PM »
What he did say is that for a given amount of material used he could store more in his hybrid then a lithium ion battery of more material. Pound for pound he is exactly right. Even with the rudimentary analysis he has done he shows this and given the fact that he did not discharge his hybrid fully in that video I would say that shows the errors were fully acknowledged to be his advantage in this case. You seem to focus only on what you want to see and don't think anything about the fact that the test was not fully complete when he cut off the test early due to time restraints.

No, in fact RMS has not proven anything because his measurement is a total fail.  He is just measuring current flow without accounting for the voltage associated with that current flow.

Pound for pound he has proven nothing and his conclusions are exactly wrong.

I will repeat to you that a 12-year-old that is very astute and is interested in batteries and electronics would not make that gross error.  Yet you have a grown man making a ridiculous mistake in that clip and the mistake is indefensible.  So you are just wasting your time in the face of incontrovertible evidence that his measurements are dead wrong.

You simply cannot make a mistake like that.  You can't in good conscience present junk data.  Or can you?  Look at all the YouTube comments congratulating him and how nobody here spotted the problem.

At this point you just want to be argumentative to push your own personal agenda.  "Those nasty people that insist you read the data on your multimeters and analyze it properly."  Yes, you have to read the data on your multimeters and analyze it properly with no exceptions at all.  Yes, you have to account for the voltage when you are making an equivalent ampere-hour measurement with no exceptions at all.

You are making "Bizarro World" arguments but the problem is this is not a Superman comic fantasy, this is real life.  You have nothing Jbignes5, nothing.

Offline jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #170 on: December 08, 2015, 10:11:00 PM »
please look above your post for the proof that li-ion batteries have a lower power density of the li-ion caps.

 Obviously you are not an experimenter and have nothing to bring to the table but your bible thumping. DO IT or shut up! Put up or get out of the kitchen. Build it, the burden of proof is on you not him. He made the claim and now it is your job to prove it with a real experiment, not some drivel you are harping on. The ball is in your court. It will be interesting if you could even be smart enough to figure out how he made it. Trust me it is all there in previous videos made by him.


 Do it or face the consequences that you are nothing but a bible thumper and troll.


 The reason why no one spotted a problem but you is because you are making a problem out of nothing. Thats why no one here spotted it either "chicken little". They all know about what he is doing because he has shown his work in many many videos. He has explained on more then 3 or so videos that his goal is to get people working in this area. Thats the main goal. When you have many many people working on a problem it gets many many new views of that same problem. Plus he wants people to do the work. To see that this stuff needn't be that complicated. It is you who is making this into something it is not. As a general comparison he attempts to show that it is better both in the materials that makes it and the environment which is getting heavily polluted with this kind of stuff. But i digress. Prove him wrong. Not by calculation but by a video made by you showing it isn't right with your scientific mathematical proofs done the way you like. Otherwise let it go. See a troll is exactly what you are doing and hence why you got deleted posts because you seem to think you can demand things from people. You say because he is ignoring you that he doesn't want to face this and that couldn't be further from the truth. He wants people to see that this stuff can be done easily and safely to encourage others to think and yes maybe prove him wrong. Not by mathematical BS but by example. Show your example and maybe he will forgive you and answer your demands. Thats all he wants. For you to do it if you think he is in error. Not by armchair watching a video but by doing the experiment to learn just how easy this is.


 By the way how does it feel for someone to demean and demand you to produce evidence?


 Come on smarty pants show us your skills of the real and not some mathematical construct you worship.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #171 on: December 08, 2015, 10:24:12 PM »


 Obviously you are not an experimenter and have nothing to bring to the table but your bible thumping. DO IT or shut up! Put up or get out of the kitchen. Build it the burden of proof is on you not him. He made the claim and now it is your job to prove it with a real experiment, not some drivel you are harping on. The ball is in your court. It will be interesting if you could even be smart enough to figure out how he made it. Trust me it is all there in previous videos made by him.


 Do it or face the consequences that you are nothing but a bible thumper and troll.

Listen to me.

To measure the energy in a battery you measure voltage times current times time.

RMS measuring the energy in his battery by incorrectly measuring current times time.

He is missing the voltage measurement which BY DEFINITION you CAN NOT ignore.

Let that sink into your head.

It is that bad, and that is not "bible thumping."   You have nothing, and the RMS clip should be taken down and redone.  He needs to make more accurate mass measurements for the active compounds and he needs to actually do the energy measurement properly.

Based on my very preliminary estimate, there is a decent chance that he does not have any advantage at all over a lithium-ion battery when it comes to energy per unit mass for the active compounds.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #172 on: December 08, 2015, 10:27:35 PM »
Quote
And by the way in all courts that I have known it isn't the burden of proof on the claimant it is the burden of proof on the accuser.

Wake up, this is science and the burden of proof is on the claimant.  That is the most tired cliche in the realm of free energy;  "Prove that my over unity device does not work."

Offline jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #173 on: December 08, 2015, 10:34:54 PM »
please look above your post for the proof that li-ion batteries have a lower power density of the li-ion caps.

 Obviously you are not an experimenter and have nothing to bring to the table but your bible thumping. DO IT or shut up! Put up or get out of the kitchen. Build it, the burden of proof is on you not him. He made the claim and now it is your job to prove it with a real experiment, not some drivel you are harping on. The ball is in your court. It will be interesting if you could even be smart enough to figure out how he made it. Trust me it is all there in previous videos made by him.


 Do it or face the consequences that you are nothing but a bible thumper and troll.


 The reason why no one spotted a problem but you is because you are making a problem out of nothing. Thats why no one here spotted it either "chicken little". They all know about what he is doing because he has shown his work in many many videos. He has explained on more then 3 or so videos that his goal is to get people working in this area. Thats the main goal. When you have many many people working on a problem it gets many many new views of that same problem. Plus he wants people to do the work. To see that this stuff needn't be that complicated. It is you who is making this into something it is not. As a general comparison he attempts to show that it is better both in the materials that makes it and the environment which is getting heavily polluted with this kind of stuff. But i digress. Prove him wrong. Not by calculation but by a video made by you showing it isn't right with your scientific mathematical proofs done the way you like. Otherwise let it go. See a troll is exactly what you are doing and hence why you got deleted posts because you seem to think you can demand things from people. You say because he is ignoring you that he doesn't want to face this and that couldn't be further from the truth. He wants people to see that this stuff can be done easily and safely to encourage others to think and yes maybe prove him wrong. Not by mathematical BS but by example. Show your example and maybe he will forgive you and answer your demands. Thats all he wants. For you to do it if you think he is in error. Not by armchair watching a video but by doing the experiment to learn just how easy this is.


 By the way how does it feel for someone to demean and demand you to produce evidence?


 Come on smarty pants show us your skills of the real and not some mathematical construct you worship.


 Please answer this.. Answer all of this without skirting around the issue....

Offline jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #174 on: December 08, 2015, 10:35:26 PM »
Wake up, this is science and the burden of proof is on the claimant.  That is the most tired cliche in the realm of free energy;  "Prove that my over unity device does not work."

 In the first place he doesn't claim overunity so please stop making this what it isn't....

 Ok so what is peer review to you?

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #175 on: December 08, 2015, 10:40:32 PM »

 Please answer this.. Answer all of this without skirting around the issue....

Listen to me again.

Power = voltage x current.

Power is NOT "current."

It is the most fundamental basic concept that all energy research and analysis is based on.

Do you agree with this or not?

You can't be so ignorant that you would not agree with the above statement.  Therefore you also agree that Robert Murray-Smith made an unacceptable error.  You have no choice but to agree with me if you agree that power = voltage x current.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #176 on: December 08, 2015, 10:41:51 PM »
In the first place he doesn't claim overunity so please stop making this what it isn't....

You need to work on your English comprehension.

Offline jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #177 on: December 08, 2015, 10:45:37 PM »
No my comprehension is just fine. You meant to belittle this forum by that statement.

 How about you comprehend my post about what is peer review... Funny how you didn't respond to that.... Also I am an electronic technician that fixes devices that break almost on a daily basis. I am a real world technician. Not some high paid engineer that has no idea about real world applications of a circuit, for which you apparently are. This is your problem, instead of reading my post you picked out one grammatical error and stopped there. You didn't read a thing after that because you are locked into a dead end logical fallacy that is tripping you up. I made a frigging grammatical error excuse me troll. I went back and fixed it.. Now please give me the meaning of peer review.


 Now how do you get peer review in this situation? AHA, Just do it! Then you have all the proof you need and this would end immediately but keep going the way you are going and all you will get is proving me right that your only goal is to troll anything anyone put down in this forum or on youtube. How self important are you...

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #178 on: December 08, 2015, 11:03:49 PM »
How about you comprehend my post about what is peer review... Funny how you didn't respond to that.... Also I am an electronic technician that fixes devices that break almost on a daily basis. I am a real world technician. not some high paid engineer that has not idea about real world applications of a circuit, for which you apparently are. This is your problem, instead of reading my post you picked out one grammatical error and stopped there. You didn't read a thing after that because you are locked into a dead end logical fallacy that is tripping you up. I made a frigging grammatical error excuse me troll... Now please give me the meaning of peer review.


 Now how do you get peer review in this situation? AHA, Just do it! Then you have all the proof you need and this would end immediately but keep going the way you are going and all you will get is proving me right that you only goal is to troll anything anyone put down in this forum.

Peer review has nothing to do with this.  It's beyond the scope of what we are discussing.  But if that clip was subject to peer review it would be crucified.

You are just ragging on about your own agenda.  If you are an electronic technician then you should also see how dead wrong this clip is.  I am fully aware about the real world of electronics.  Like I said, if you agree that power = voltage x current then you agree that RMS's clip is junk.  You simply don't have any other choice.

Offline jbignes5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?
« Reply #179 on: December 08, 2015, 11:10:36 PM »
Peer review has nothing to do with this.  It's beyond the scope of what we are discussing.  But if that clip was subject to peer review it would be crucified.

You are just ragging on about your own agenda.  If you are an electronic technician then you should also see how dead wrong this clip is.  I am fully aware about the real world of electronics.  Like I said, if you agree that power = voltage x current then you agree that RMS's clip is junk.  You simply don't have any other choice.


 No you are peer reviewing his video and subsequent device. You are saying he made errors without doing the work to check it in your theoretical dream world where there is no .006 only 1's. It is being reviewed by anyone that sees it and you somehow took up the mantle to be his troll didn't you? You did this by A: Trying to ruin his video by your comments and B: By taking this to an outside forum and starting a thread to troll him from afar. You make claims he is doing this and that, well until you prove it, both to your self and us, then your credibility is moot on this. He doesn't have to do the experiment your way he only has to present what he thinks is going on. If he doesn't supply all of the information then maybe you need to prove he was doing it wrong, not by mathematics but by actually doing the experiment and showing where he went wrong. Oh thats right you just type you don't actually do anything for real....