Wesley's Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum

[v8karlo]

My best regards to you.


Stay inert and do nothing like you always do. For you I am faking heat without power. Probably by magic.

[lancaIV]

My best regards to you.


Stay inert and do nothing like you always do. For you I am faking heat without power. Probably by magic.

Do not be angry about the responds, please !
You offer two different circuits, as you write : simple concepts, but we all and I mean you too do not know about the effectivity from these devices.
After several trials and real measurements we all will know it better.
"heat without power" is impossible, by less power consume than conventional is better and the first success.Later search for improvements.

Bulbs are bad indicators, beside light intensity and heat output per VA these are all parameters which will have become tested !One step to the next.
Affordable " heating devices" makes part from the "zero ( primary fossil ) energy program"
Good entry in 2019 wishing
 OCWL
p.s.: and yes, resistive devices can also become improved in their consume, this are f.e. the so called " controler" by higher priced infrared- emitters, working by the variable frequency process, in average - 40% consume.By conversation with a german IR- heater producer and seller he told me that sometimes he felt hisself treated like a violator by the concurrence cause the measured and claimed result numbers.

[Hoppy]

My best regards to you.


Stay inert and do nothing like you always do. For you I am faking heat without power. Probably by magic.

Your belief will forever be your instrumentation.

Best wishes & Happy New Year

[v8karlo]

Yeah,




That is not reason for fight. I wish you happy New 2019 to you Void.
You too Hoopy!


Sorry, i am typing on my smartphone in a car

[AlienGrey]

My best regards to you.


Stay inert and do nothing like you always do. For you, I am faking heat without power. Probably by magic.

Yeah magic is a keyword if they want to see how your device works and learn
then build the dam thing scope it and give us all a rest.
Happy new year to everyone.

But does it work if some clever Geza allocated you with a smart meter?  He, He!     

v8karlo Thing is Karlo is a thinker and a doer.             

[ramset]

AG did post this in Kapanadze topic but it should probably go here first ?

AG ..Power from the Sun ...

Stefan put these links in the comments

..Snip
overunity.com >>> Go here: The full website is: http://zpower.biz/ or: http://zpower.net/ And here new infos: https://spark.adobe.com/page/sRdP4qaNoCRW0/      http://fluxpowertechnology.com/
------------------------------------------
PS..
in another bit of open source FE business a member at Energetic forum that shares his work  asks a question about iron Oxide [he is a good man and can use all the support this community can offer IMO
and besides helping him it would be useful for experimenters here working with 3d printers or "other" in outside the box experiments...

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/21092-velocity-factor-black-iron-oxide.html

[Belfior]

Hi Wesley. Here is how I see things. 

If TL;DR here are my thoughts on the matter:

Pollution no matter what it is must be stopped. Earth can take much, but come on greedy people! We cannot be sure how much our CO2 output affects the climate, so try not to do more of it ok?
The biggest enemy how ever is the financial system. We create debt, that needs more work to be done to pay it off. Banks do not have money. They just create debt. Production and consuming must also raise with the debt, so we can pay all loans. This is just forced pollution, so that somebody can make more money, or more debt for somebody to pay back.

Here are some things that I have found trying to look into this hysteria. Do not believe me. Go look for yourself

1. The climate is changing!
    - Yes. That is true. It has changed for 4,5 billion years.
    - just check the temperatures between ice ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
    - 125,000 years ago the earth had 300ppm of CO2 and a temperature 5c warmer than now and sea levels rose 6 to 9 meters.

2. Temperature has never been so high during the time we have measured
    - This was cherry picking. They use the term "measured" and they do not take all the measurements since 1700. No ice core samples when you "measure"
    - Temperature went down from 1940 -> 1975. Right after the war when industry boomed
    - If you wanna go all the way, you look at the ice core samples. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
    - The temperature has been FAR greater in the past and CO2 also. But if you do not talk about ice core samples, you can say it is now warmer than ever

3. Sea level is raising
    - Yes. It has been doing that since the last ice age. 40cm in every 100 years

4. CO2 is poison
    - It is an odorless colourless gas, that makes up everything living on this planet. Plants grow from it and then create sugars, proteins and hydrocarbons. We eat animals and salad and we grow too.

5. CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas
    - Greenhouse gases are 75% water vapor and clouds. 20% CO2 and rest is ozone etc.
    - Human production of CO2 is 7% out of that 20% in atmosphere. So 7% of greenhouse gases somehow judge how climate behaves?!?

6. CO2 raises global temperature
    - It does affect the temperature, but how much? It is a funny element, because it can only trap certain frequencies. So doubling the CO2 does not double its effects. It has diminishing returns
    - We can see from the ice core data, that temperature rises first and then 200 years after the CO2 raises. More vaporising sea water?

7. 97,5% of climate scientists agree, that man made climate change exists
    - This was harder to find, since you find so many scientsts that oppose the current main stream (IPCC) idea
    - https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#d94f6073f9ff
    - John Cook is the one to blame. He sent over 10000 surveys to people, that have written papers on climate. Got 3500 replies and arranged them to classes like "did not answer on the second question of the survey. going to count that a 'yes' " If you go through his whole data and actually find the people that checked the question "Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause" were under 70 people. UNDER 70 FROM more than 10000 surveys. He really needed to pull some tricks to get that to 97,5%
     - https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#d94f6073f9ff

8. Polar ice is melting
    - Yes. On North Pole. Antarctica is gaining ice. Over 300 feet since 1940
    - The digged out a plane that crashed during the war https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/glacier-girl-the-back-story-19218360/
    - Greenland has had warm periods like "the medieval warm period" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period . Forests and green pastures in Greenland and Vikings went there

9. Hurricanes and storms are worse than ever.
    - another cherry pick. Report was done 2014, but the data was from
    - https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/no-global-warming-isnt-causing-worse-hurricanes/
    - The monster hurricane trend is not raising https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42251921
    - When media gives you the news, they will tell you that climate change caused this weather

[Hoppy]

Yes, we are coming out of an interglacial warm period, with a natural trend for increased global cooling. However, mankind is bucking that trend, to halt the cooling and reverse that trend at an alarming rate compared to natural timescales and yes, the globalist elite are taking every advantage to make hay while the sunshines to satisfy their insatiable greed.

[stivep]

AG did post this in Kapanadze topic but it should probably go here first ?

AG ..Power from the Sun ...

Stefan put these links in the comments

..Snip
overunity.com >>> Go here: The full website is: http://zpower.biz/ or: http://zpower.net/ And here new infos: https://spark.adobe.com/page/sRdP4qaNoCRW0/      http://fluxpowertechnology.com/
------------------------------------------
PS..
in another bit of open source FE business a member at Energetic forum that shares his work  asks a question about iron Oxide [he is a good man and can use all the support this community can offer IMO
and besides helping him it would be useful for experimenters here working with 3d printers or "other" in outside the box experiments...

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/21092-velocity-factor-black-iron-oxide.html

Ramzet Happy New Year
After looking at : http://zpower.biz/
in 10:19  https://youtu.be/MsJwRznsf4o?t=612
The guy says about oscilloscope in such a way that the conclusion indicates variable components.

in 10:31 https://youtu.be/MsJwRznsf4o?t=631
The guy is warning about dangerous shock. That indicates  HV.
However measurement  shows 15.5V.
Well easy enough HV low current  = low  voltage High current
So meter is switched to DC and it only shows DC component.
The AC component can not damage  the meter as the current is   low.
But meter on AC does not show it. It shows only 138 mV.
That is also easy to explain.Simple Chinese  Multimeters are  very simple tools that measures only up to 10kHz some of them  1MHz at most.
 simple math:
We have enclosure of  helicopter light that has light bulb replaced.  The original lightbulb was 800W : 28V DC = 28.571A
The  guy conforms that he removed  original  lightbulb and all electronics from the enclosure.
We assume that replaced  lightbulb used the same mirror and   it was at nominal  24V with the device now  at ~ 18V  of steady  DC component under load.
At my Gamma Scientific PHO 4040,  light  from the video at its brightest point was compared to light of incandescent flat light from 45W light bulb.
This light was recorded  and than projected  and measured  on the same screen of my computer side by side .
The light used as my reference was measured from the distance of   3.5m .
That is close to the estimated distance of the camera to the reflector from the video.
The two brightest points of both  indicated ~ 42W .
However if  we approximate focused  light beam from helicopter  reflector  using mirror. we come to  lightbulb  of 35W running at approximately 50% of its nominal brightness.
that means  16-17W.

And now  lets take as a base  for calculation the maximum  of possible - nominal 45W.
So my error in  calculation of power dissipated by the reflector can be within  45:100 x 35= 15.75
15.75 : 2 = +/-  7.875%
So  the  effective range of  energy consumed by  Lightbulb  inside the reflector is   in  average   its maximum  around  20 to 22 W
To low 12W to 15W.
That is why the guy used helicopter reflector mirror  instead   of just regular incandescent lightbulb.
He wanted to impress potential viewer with  light intensity.

Please note that the original lightbulb used 4 wires than connected to regular  outlet box.
The module with   quote 

5 different  frequencies

can be simply digital switch  switching relay inside enclosure to the battery using one single impulse.
the stack of plates  can be additional battery  (in addition  to the one hidden in  the helicopter  light enclosure .)
 


I'm not saying that this is fake.  But  empty enclosure of that  reflector has enough place for quite good battery inside.

From motivation stand point:
This guy  is  a commercially oriented  body.
And that body  has in his possession potential wealth  of Bill Gates .
Why he is still in his house in his  age, instead of taking all of the beauty of his life now.


Wesley
 


 

[Hoppy]

At least the box is a lot neater than Tariel's and he uses a clean scrap PCB. 

[Void]

I would urge you to check up on the 'climate change hysteria' and not just take it for truth what the IPCC and media tells you.

Hi Belfior. Sorry, I am not interested in such obviously false anti climate-change propaganda.
Climate scientists around the world are in wide agreement that climate change is
human driven and that this world is most probably heading for major catastrophes in the near
future if this is not greatly alleviated now. The very negative effects of climate change have already
become quite apparent in this world just to the casual observer. I am not at all interested in
very obvious false propaganda which by all indications is funded behind the scenes by Big Oil
and similar groups with a very vested interest in trying to fool the foolish in this regard. 

[bboj]

Hi Belfior. Sorry, I am not interested in such obviously false anti climate-change propaganda.
Climate scientists around the world are in wide agreement that climate change is
human driven and that this world is most probably heading for major catastrophes in the near
future if this is not greatly alleviated now

I realy hope you will be the first one to prove this statement. If you do, I will send you personally a bottle of a top quality Cognac to start a new year in stile.

[seychelles]

yeah when one volcano erupts it emits more crap plus more CO2 than trillions of cars
for a whole year. and guest where they put the CO monitoring station next to one of the most
active volcano on earth in Hawaii..we are fucking up this earth but we are not causing green house
bull shit effect..it is the sun and the cold fusion which happening in the core of our space ship mother
earth..I CALL THESE BASTARDS THE VAMPIRE DIABOLICS..WHO IN THIS WORLD WOULD TRUST A FUCKING
BUNCH OF VAMPIRES...

[Belfior]

Hi Belfior. Sorry, I am not interested in such obviously false anti climate-change propaganda.
Climate scientists around the world are in wide agreement that climate change is
human driven and that this world is most probably heading for major catastrophes in the near
future if this is not greatly alleviated now. The very negative effects of climate change have already
become quite apparent in this world just to the casual observer. I am not at all interested in
very obvious false propaganda which by all indications is funded behind the scenes by Big Oil
and similar groups with a very vested interest in trying to fool the foolish in this regard.

Sure. Cognitive dissonance it is then. This is a wrong thread for this, but if you can offer me any actual facts that support human caused climate change then please PM them to me.

Casual observer only observers what the media tells them. I want facts and not a religion.

[Void]

... and it is not even a full moon. 

Meanwhile, let's get back to the lab, and see what we have on the slab...

My current test setup with some new improvements seems to still be showing COP < 1, but so far at least seemingly giving
quite high efficiency. I know I can get the efficiency at least a little better yet, as I haven't fully optimized the setup yet.
Will I be able to break the COP = 1 barrier? Chances are I won't, but I am not giving up (yet). My current circuit concept
at least theoretically should be at least quite efficient, which my latest design appears to be so far, and by my way of thinking
it might possibly do even a little better than it is performing now once I get everything optimized. What's my point?
My first several tries at this circuit did not perform well at all, but I observed what were the main issues with
the setup and thought about how I might be able to address those issues. I then made changes to the setup
in a step by step manner and observed whether my new changes helped or not. I am learning from both my
failures and from what helps improve the setup's performance. My suggestion is take things step by step
and don't be put off by failures. Learn from those failures and use this new knowledge to design better setups.
Theory and ideas can only take you so far. You must start testing at some point on the test bench, and approaching
this testing in a systematic and step by step progressive manner is probably a very good idea, IMO. Don't
let failures discourage you, but you must be willing to observe carefully and think about the implications from different
angles so you can learn from your failures. My two cent's worth for the new year.

P.S. As has been pointed out already here, if the theory behind your test setup does not include a way to draw in
energy from external to your test setup into your test setup, you are not likely at all ever going to see a COP > 1.
Start with a theory for achieving COP > 1 which you think potentially at least holds some promise, then put this theory
to the test systematically on the test bench. If it doesn't work at all as predicted and you have tested it well, then
you probably need to go back to the drawing board at that point.