# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: Belfior on January 03, 2019, 01:21:41 PM

Title: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 03, 2019, 01:21:41 PM
I am trying to create my own test setup and I would really go as simple as I can. Now I am trying to use a transistor in reverse avalanche mode to create an oscillator, but that works very randomly.

Could you guys help me find different kind of oscillators?

There can be a maximum of one transistor or mosfet. Using just inductors, resistors and caps would be optimal.

My setup is battery feeding a cap and then when the voltage reaches the avalance voltage, it goes through the transistor and L1
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Hoppy on January 03, 2019, 02:09:16 PM
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/power/unijunction-transistor.html
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: F6FLT on January 03, 2019, 03:09:20 PM
.
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: gyulasun on January 03, 2019, 04:07:07 PM
Just to widen your choices,   8)   see the Lambda diode oscillator consisting only of an n and p channel JFET
(if you cannot obtain a p channel JFET, it can be replaced with a pnp transistor plus 2 resistors):
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm (http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm)

also see this collection here, mainly towards the bottom part:  http://zpostbox.ru/g1_e.htm (http://zpostbox.ru/g1_e.htm)

Gyula

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 13, 2019, 04:14:20 PM
Flyback could also work. Simple one here:

Just trying to get it as simple as it could be. Wondering if a 12MHz crystal would work with a mosfet somehow
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: F6FLT on January 14, 2019, 09:59:55 PM
Just to widen your choices,   8)   see the Lambda diode oscillator consisting only of an n and p channel JFET
(if you cannot obtain a p channel JFET, it can be replaced with a pnp transistor plus 2 resistors):
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm (http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm)
...

Very interesting, especially the "regenerative receiver", and I would like to test it, because it is a way to easily implement the principle mentioned in this NASA patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5296866), more easily than by the method described therein, because we could use only one coil instead of two.

The radio signal received by a coil on a ferrite rod is amplified, and positive feedback feeds another coil on the same ferrite.
This increases the efficiency but this patent made me understand something else much more fundamental.

When a current flows through the receiving coil, it causes a magnetic field that opposes the ambient field of the electromagnetic wave. As the energy is conserved, the cancellation of the energy of the ambient field causes it to be relocated even further into the ferrite. This is why the resonance by an LC circuit, which increases the current in the coil, improves reception.

When received energy is amplified and injected back into the ferrite in phase, larger areas of the ambient field are attenuated and more energy is recovered in the ferrite (with the risk of self-oscillation). Since this re-injection can provide as much or even more current than a tuned LC circuit, no tuning is required and broadband antennas with as much gain or more than the tuned equivalent can be obtained.

This is used in so-called "non-Foster" antenna matching circuits, which use for example negative capacitances or inductances,  example here (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6206602).
The interest is remarkable, because the antenna behaves as if it had much larger dimensions than its actual physical dimensions, which makes it possible, in addition to improving the gain, to improve the noise factor, which is impossible without this technique, whatever the antenna amplifier we would use.

I don't know if this brilliant idea for radio reception of small signals can be useful for energy.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 16, 2019, 02:45:19 PM
Just to widen your choices,   8)   see the Lambda diode oscillator consisting only of an n and p channel JFET
(if you cannot obtain a p channel JFET, it can be replaced with a pnp transistor plus 2 resistors):
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm (http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm)

also see this collection here, mainly towards the bottom part:  http://zpostbox.ru/g1_e.htm (http://zpostbox.ru/g1_e.htm)

Gyula

thx dude! Invented cold fusion last night, so need to read those articles later
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: F6FLT on January 17, 2019, 11:04:19 AM
...Invented cold fusion last night...
You'll have to tell us more about it.  :D
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 17, 2019, 01:54:56 PM
You'll have to tell us more about it.  :D

Well I might have to give it a year or two more :)

If you setup your research framework like I have, then you need to start turning things upside down. What I have seen they are trying to control plasma with magnetic fields and this way get to the temperature that is needed for their elements to combine and then release extra ions or electrons.

I found something that is self contained. Like I have said before I will publish anything I find out open source. I see no point in talking about my discoveries here, before they are validated or scrapped.

Digging into Maxwell now and trying to figure out who was wrong and was something an error or somebody was hiding something. Maxwell even simplified his theories after they were criticized and after that they were raped by Heaviside, Lorentz & gang.

PS. I do not agree with you, that we have well established rules & physics and we should not look into it, because it works so well as it is. I'm paraphrasing, but the jist was like that. I base my research on the hypothesis, that if free energy exists, then there is active suppression. So if anything "real" is done in universities, it is done under NDA and national security. Other "real" research is done in military labs. What we get in schools is diluted or plain false. What you get from these schools is a religion and you will defend this religion to the end, because otherwise it would mean that all your hard work was for nothing, your thesis was based on a lie and that framed "crusifix" on the wall is only a reminder how gullible you were. So you push on as a "priest".

But this is my research and you need to take the red pill to agree with me. So if this all sounds to you like its crazy talk, then just move along.

PPS. I understand I have made people feel bad with what I have said (about a lot of things) and I am sorry for that. In the future I try to STFU

PPPS: I will attach BARRET's take on Maxwell
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: F6FLT on January 17, 2019, 10:56:18 PM
...I base my research on the hypothesis, that if free energy exists, then there is active suppression. So if anything "real" is done in universities, it is done under NDA and national security. Other "real" research is done in military labs. What we get in schools is diluted or plain false...
Conspiracy theory based on none fact.
There are thousands of researchers around the world, in countries with different interests. If something abnormal could be seen by a military lab, other researchers would also see it, who are not subject to secrecy, and anyway on the number of people aware, it would be impossible to prevent leaks.

About Maxwell, Faraday and other pioneers of electromagnetism, everything was based on reasoning in a 3D space. So there are subtle differences sometimes depending on whether we use the equations of one or the other, because electromagnetic phenomena are relativistic, you need 4D otherwise you only have approximations.
Relativity is the ultimate answer if you want to calculate magnetic fields, currents... (but it's more complicated) because it all comes down to the "point of view" of the charges moving relative to each other, which modifies the topology of the Coulomb field. The magnetic field is the Coulomb electric field modified due to velocities. With relativity, everything can be treated with electric fields, and inconsistencies between 19th century equations, or paradoxes, are eliminated.

I understand that Barett disputes the completeness of Maxwell's equations in the paper you provided, I even agree that the Aharonov-Bohm effect can be explained outside quantum mechanics, but to mix QM and classical physics, without going through relativity, I think he uses a wrong method and that he will fall into other errors of the same type as those he hopes to correct.
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 17, 2019, 11:38:31 PM
There are thousands of researchers around the world, in countries with different interests. If something abnormal could be seen by a military lab, other researchers would also see it, who are not subject to secrecy, and anyway on the number of people aware, it would be impossible to prevent leaks.

True, assuming that there is no active suppression. And no one has a financial interest in suppressing also. True?

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 18, 2019, 12:29:50 AM
Space: 3D x Time : min. + 1D :ergo Maxwell,Faraday and other researchers theorized in minimum  in the 4 th D !

Also by own and listen to others their before/ after experiments and repeatability !

Avogrado, Gay-Lussac,....  : when.....,  then .... !
Logic Thesis or Hypothesis : Classical electro-magneto dynamics regime to later Quantum regime !
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Alexandre_C%C3%A9sar_Charles (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Alexandre_C%C3%A9sar_Charles) : " Experimentalphysik"

Academy of Sciences : all their members worldwide 4d spectrum experience

Today often :

Simple engineers and technicians their experiments and answer or "Physics: 2019 , correct  or to become corrected!? " questions :

Otto and Roberto their well documents related Steven Marks his Toroidal Power Unit :
http://freetesla.blogspot.com/2011/08/successful-tpu-ecd-replication.html?m=1 (http://freetesla.blogspot.com/2011/08/successful-tpu-ecd-replication.html?m=1)

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/37609840/ottos-tpu-replication (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/37609840/ottos-tpu-replication)
https://docplayer.org/103574544-Tpu-ecd-energy-conversion-device-energkonverter-offenlegung-von-otto-sabljaric-roberto-notte.html (https://docplayer.org/103574544-Tpu-ecd-energy-conversion-device-energkonverter-offenlegung-von-otto-sabljaric-roberto-notte.html)
" No Academy of Sciences Peers review "  worth ?

PAGE 54 :THIS IS CONTRARY ANY KNOWN THERMODYNAMICS LAWS( page 63 in the to german translated TPU-ECD pdf )
Before or after " hot and cold " !? Why AC and DC parallel output ( 2 Seeds) ?

AC " seed" circuit meets DC " seed" + controle circuit

"On the way to No-where" 4d to 1d I would recapitulize :
http://rexresearch.com/sweet3/sweet3.htm (http://rexresearch.com/sweet3/sweet3.htm)  and his publications

https://newatlas.com/gold-melt-room-temperature/57327/ (https://newatlas.com/gold-melt-room-temperature/57327/)

: Quantum Electro-Chemistry

"EIGEN"(+SPIN CCW orCW) -FREQUENZ, CHARAKTER of the elementary material

Material with counter-spin,  anti-matter,  so called : http://www.rexresearch.com/ormes/ormes.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/ormes/ormes.htm)

-----------------
This is beyond my personal knowledge and experiments experience and my personal interests
But let me "spin"- ning and "or"-akeln   8)   :

after "yellow and white"- Gold exploration we will have in future besidethe conventional Spin-Precious Metall an even great Counter-Spin-Precious-Metall exploration industry , + insitu " Lead to Gold"-Transmutator or " dream to reality"- incubator.
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: F6FLT on January 18, 2019, 08:42:11 AM
Quote
There are thousands of researchers around the world, in countries with different interests. If something abnormal could be seen by a military lab, other researchers would also see it, who are not subject to secrecy, and anyway on the number of people aware, it would be impossible to prevent leaks.
True, assuming that there is no active suppression. And no one has a financial interest in suppressing also. True?

You missed "impossible to prevent leaks".
You missed "countries with different interests"
Either your post is ironic or you missed 100% of what you quoted.

Nevertheless, everyone has the right to believe in conspiracy theories as well as in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and to continue to seek free energy despite the uselessness of finding it since the omnipotence you see in men in black would prevent you from disclosing anything!   ::)
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 18, 2019, 08:56:31 AM
https://docplayer.org/103574544-Tpu-ecd-energy-conversion-device-energkonverter-offenlegung-von-otto-sabljaric-roberto-notte.html (https://docplayer.org/103574544-Tpu-ecd-energy-conversion-device-energkonverter-offenlegung-von-otto-sabljaric-roberto-notte.html)
To

To

Artificial Sun Tube or Ring (Stellarator)
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 18, 2019, 02:04:59 PM
You missed "impossible to prevent leaks".
You missed "countries with different interests"

No i didn't miss.

Impossible to prevent leaks, true, there are leaks, it was not about preventing leaks, but suppressing leaks.

You forgot, all the world has like one financial system, it is integrated, it is inter-dependent, it is one integrated power. Thus whatever endangers that power, there are means to take measures, in whatever country.

I thought why there are so many arrogant people in science. It must be something like, they have been told if you know this, you are smarter than most others, and one can turn ones nose to the sky. By that, there are many wrong people in science. I'm sorry for saying that, but one should also be able to take some criticism.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 18, 2019, 03:07:30 PM
I see no difference in believing in conspiracy theories or believing in something that was taught in school.

Einstein said he was not satisfied with his theory, because it did not model reality correctly. That has all changed now that he is the god and his theory has been taken above and beyond by mathematicians.

My way of doing research is different, because I try not to find evidence that supports my case. I try to find evidence.

If you believe you are educated properly and then you just for kicks try some weird theory on the bench, you stop half way if the results show that I =U/R. Then you feel all warm and fuzzy and go on a rampage telling everybody they are stupid and then link to wikipedia.

It is much more rewarding go to the other way. If you start from the idea that they lie, you will realize things that were just equations to you before. I am not saying my way is the right way. It is the right way for me. Schoolbooks say there is no free energy or at least in any form you can just harness, so you got zero chance of finding free energy. I will rather do it my way
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 18, 2019, 03:27:04 PM
Einstein said he was not satisfied with his theory, because it did not model reality correctly. That has all changed now that he is the god and his theory has been taken above and beyond by mathematicians.

Yes one thing is, he looks at his "frames of reference" like completely separated from each other, they all have like different space and different time. This is one example of ignoring connections, in space and time.

David Bohm on the other hand saw everything connected, like all comes forth from quantum entanglement.

Ignore connections, and you cannot explain why a photon goes through two slots at the same time. The key i think is, that photon is not a "local spot", it is a structure in more space than a point, that is interconnected. Thus it can be in two locations that are near each other in space, at the same time, including maybe in two different "frames of reference".

It's not that relativity is wrong, relativity is a hermetic principle, it is a universal law. It is the right way to see things as relative, but it is not right, to see them separated.

Like orgone is self-organizing, in theory. This is impossible without connections. Ignore connections, and such concepts become theoretically impossible. Thus they say everything moves towards entropy, which is chaos, that is total destruction.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 18, 2019, 03:30:04 PM
I=U/R
U= R*I "Ohms Law"

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

IQ = current quantum state ~ inrush arc/ Plasma charge current

" momentum nascendi" " nano bang,Nano nova"

eV= Elektronen-Volt(-age)      eA= Elektronen-Amperage  eR=............

IE = current electric state
V= Volt(-age).                            A= Amperage.                       R= ..............
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 18, 2019, 05:16:33 PM
If you believe you are educated properly and then you just for kicks try some weird theory on the bench, you stop half way if the results show that I =U/R. Then you feel all warm and fuzzy and go on a rampage telling everybody they are stupid and then link to wikipedia.

As we don't know exactly how it is, and a huge number of possibilities, the result of every experiment would most likely be negative, this should be expected. Every such negative experiment is important though, removing some possibilities and making further research easier. It mostly enables to understand things more, sometimes giving indications of how to move further. But negative results are mostly disregarded, and all the work lost, with others destined to try it all over again. Then when having some theory, and  after many tries, one time may be a success. Nevertheless all who do the work, including these getting negative results, do important work and are equally worth credit.

Like F6FLT said, no one knows where the key hole is. But there are ways to search for the key hole. Every hole found is not the key hole though.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 18, 2019, 11:15:25 PM
I=U/R
U= R*I "Ohms Law"

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

IQ = current quantum state ~ inrush arc/ Plasma charge current

" momentum nascendi" " nano bang,Nano nova"

eV= Elektronen-Volt(-age)      eA= Elektronen-Amperage  eR=............

IE = current electric state
V= Volt(-age).                            A= Amperage.                       R= ..............
"momentum nascendi"
thermo-nuclear to electric "Zeitfenster"
Soft light spectrum and hard - radikale- light spectrum : alphs,beta,gamma,delta,neutr-on/ino

we call it "erosion" ,the process of metals use, but also there is by each switch on an arc melting on the metal  surface like EDM, is there also during this charge an atomic number and mass number change,
which gives nuclear energy free ,

"electricity - " electron/ ion gas/ plasma use " in common not.an electro chemical :
but atomar/ nuclear energy process ?!

Now having the two states by one electric current, first quantum state during " inrush cycles" then the electrical state during steady cycles ( ~ Papalexi-Mandelstam Parametric generator principle ) we can translate this process by conversion from this " Hybris" :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBattery Hybrid-storage or delivery
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: forest on January 19, 2019, 10:04:39 AM
I'm writing here maybe somebody can help me. I have a capacitor and I need to figure out what current it will produce when shorted on very low resistance. It's photoflash type 60uF 330V - how to find the current generated in photo flash lamp ? Is that something dependable on internal resistance ESR ? Is that something producer should provide in datasheet ? Let assume I have such condensator discharge using DC oscillator and I need to choose proper mosfet ;-) HELP ME please  :-\
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: sparkmen on January 19, 2019, 10:54:10 AM
hi forest, there is a simple app for smart phone "electrodroid" free of charge, you can play with charge/discharge capacitor current/time, assuming a ESR of capacitor added to internal mosfet Ron resistance
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: sparkmen on January 19, 2019, 10:59:57 AM
hi forest, there is a simple app for smart phone "electrodroid" free of charge, you can play with charge/discharge capacitor current/time, assuming a ESR of capacitor added to internal mosfet Ron resistance

if you have  a 60 uF  loaded at 330v and discharged on esr+Ron+load =10ohm , initial current is 33A
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 19, 2019, 12:55:00 PM
Yes one thing is, he looks at his "frames of reference" like completely separated from each other, they all have like different space and different time. This is one example of ignoring connections, in space and time.

David Bohm on the other hand saw everything connected, like all comes forth from quantum entanglement.

Ignore connections, and you cannot explain why a photon goes through two slots at the same time. The key i think is, that photon is not a "local spot", it is a structure in more space than a point, that is interconnected. Thus it can be in two locations that are near each other in space, at the same time, including maybe in two different "frames of reference".

It's not that relativity is wrong, relativity is a hermetic principle, it is a universal law. It is the right way to see things as relative, but it is not right, to see them separated.

Like orgone is self-organizing, in theory. This is impossible without connections. Ignore connections, and such concepts become theoretically impossible. Thus they say everything moves towards entropy, which is chaos, that is total destruction.

I agree for the most part. Like 10 years ago I would have said that astrology is just crap and maybe most of it is, but you can also think on planets and such as gravity lenses. You will get different frequencies and levels of power hitting you when some planets are aligned. I can't say how it affects you or does it, but the energy comes here. More energy means more heat and movement. Maybe also inside your brain.

Everything light. Energy and vibrations. This table and my thoughts. We can affect EM waves with coils and such. Why couldn't we affect thought? and we can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

I have not studied the orgone. I suspect we are talking about hte monoatomic gold and such?

Funny how sumerians say the gods came here to get gold for their "twindling atmosphere" and then every Egyptian hieroglyph has the Pharaoh listing his "manna" or "Ormus" what the elite were eating. I think the sumerian atmosphere story is justa lie, so people would not get into their heads that monoatomic gold gives you "eternal" life

The most important things are kept secret and we are left in the matrix thinking this is the reality. F6LT has to go on every thread and say NONONO, because if his reality is not the reality, then he has being lied to all his life and he can't take it. Same thing with other religions. It is better if everybody is wrong and there is no God, than this one guy having a nice life while others are going to church every Sunday and "not doing sin" like watching boobs and drinking beer.
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 19, 2019, 01:14:56 PM
As we don't know exactly how it is, and a huge number of possibilities, the result of every experiment would most likely be negative, this should be expected. Every such negative experiment is important though, removing some possibilities and making further research easier. It mostly enables to understand things more, sometimes giving indications of how to move further. But negative results are mostly disregarded, and all the work lost, with others destined to try it all over again. Then when having some theory, and  after many tries, one time may be a success. Nevertheless all who do the work, including these getting negative results, do important work and are equally worth credit.

Like F6FLT said, no one knows where the key hole is. But there are ways to search for the key hole. Every hole found is not the key hole though.

F6FLT is on the money in his point, but I feel like my of research keeps the field open for any possible solution. That takes care of the whole problem of even a possiblity of suppression. If you start your research by opening your school books, you are automatically shutting out certain aspects of research and IF there is suppression, it is in that book. Why should I take the risk.

Thinking that (almost) everything we are told is a lie will broaden the field A LOT. You go all the way to Gustave Le Bonn and even earlier writers to see, if they made experiments that still hold and they are never mentioned in contemporary science books. When ever you see something like "You cannot ever..." that is a prime candidate for inspection. How many will try anything similar, if you were taught in school to never to do that? I = U/R pretty much holds true only if I = U/R. So why is that taught as any kinda "law"  to us?

Tesla said everything is energy, frequency and vibration. I will rather go with that. Like it seems to me that some equations might be missing a term. Like if someone is saying that "this only works with DC" then that tells me, that the equation should have a extra term in it that has frequency there like R x f. Maybe we can even get an equation to give us over unity, but our equation is missing a term?

You can argue that DC or AC through a pure resistor is always the same, but is it really?

I do not believe the RLC tank theory, that the internal resistances eat the power and it dies. I can start a car with that cap, but somehow internal resistances of copper eat that power in 100ms?!? Something ain't right here. Either we do not understand caps or coils, or the RLC tank resonance theory is bullshit.

Where is all the fibonachi stuff from EM theory? You can see it everywhere in nature, but not in electricity?!?

E = mc^2 and every other equation is E=mv^2/2 like kinetic energy.

Why the light speed is in there? We already know it is not the maximum limit of speed. Why isn't it the speed of sound or some other arbitrary limit the WE have set? How I see the universe is that everything is EM waves (why do we need particles? We need them so much we start adding imaginary photons) and we  can affect EM waves. So very possibly there is very little that we cannot do. The limits are man made and you just need to take the red pill

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 19, 2019, 02:47:50 PM
I have not studied the orgone. I suspect we are talking about hte monoatomic gold and such?

No. Orgone is just another name for the primary substance. Some thought it's aether, buddhists call it sunyata. But i think it's a network, and our space is formed of a dynamic network, with particles at the zero point as nodes. David Bohm thought it like that as well, his implicate ordder. Now the matter is, some say some experiments show that it is self-organizing, like in some conditions behave like living organisms. I can say for theoretical reasons that it should be self-organizing, which necessarily doesn't mean that it behaves like living organisms. Yet i think life is repeating it at the higher level.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 19, 2019, 03:15:39 PM
http://www.mrelativity.net/RelationshipEF/The_Relationship_between_E_and_F_P1.htm (http://www.mrelativity.net/RelationshipEF/The_Relationship_between_E_and_F_P1.htm)
When the " m " in the binomical determinated formula "e"= m*c^2 is the result from M1( before)-M2(after) andthis in c^2 space-time conditioning we can this call nuclear decay force or " brake energy"

Is Fibonacci a need when https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulersche_Zahl (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulersche_Zahl) or https://www.angio.net/pi/digits.html (https://www.angio.net/pi/digits.html)
is present in the algebraic or geometrical relationship ?
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 19, 2019, 03:17:02 PM
No. Orgone is just another name for the primary substance. Some thought it's aether, buddhists call it sunyata. But i think it's a network, and our space is formed of a dynamic network, with particles at the zero point as nodes. David Bohm thought it like that as well, his implicate ordder. Now the matter is, some say some experiments show that it is self-organizing, like in some conditions behave like living organisms. I can say for theoretical reasons that it should be self-organizing, which necessarily doesn't mean that it behaves like living organisms. Yet i think life is repeating it at the higher level.

Don't say aether :) That is a deprecated subject! Like who the f**k cares! We could call it Jim and would it change its existance?

Michelson-Morley experiments are maybe to first proper propaganda investigations for the suppression group. You set organize your framework so, that it will give the answers you need. Only thing they proved that aether does not instigate lag for matter

I think a coil bends the aether and when you stop the current inside the coil it snaps back like a spring. The first spike always bigger than the feeding current.

Quantum mechanics say that the vacuum is filled with energy. That is how I see it too. Radiation has been travelling in space for 15B years and it keeps getting sucked into matter and blasted out again. Now it has settled as ambient radiation (aether) and it is more dense near matter.

Maybe they call aether quantum foam now

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/gamma-ray-delay-may-be-sign-new-physics

"In 2009 the two MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescopes detected that among gamma-ray photons arriving from the blazar Markarian 501, some photons at different energy levels arrived at different times, suggesting that some of the photons had moved more slowly and thus contradicting the theory of general relativity's notion of the speed of light being constant, a discrepancy which could be explained by the irregularity of quantum foam."
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 19, 2019, 03:21:55 PM
http://www.mrelativity.net/RelationshipEF/The_Relationship_between_E_and_F_P1.htm

Is Fibonacci a need when https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulersche_Zahl or https://www.angio.net/pi/digits.html
is present in the algebraic or geometrical relationship ?

what I actually meant was the Golden Ratio and fibonachi is related to that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

That ratio is fundamental is shows up everywhere in nature. Does it show up in electronics and if it does not, why? It does not mean anything in electricity (but in everything else?!?) or it was dropped out for a reason?
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 19, 2019, 03:40:37 PM
For example : Biology
But also https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%E2%80%99s_Causeway
Why is pi ~ 22/7 or 3,1428....  Sir Francis Galton and his " Pi"- approximation experiments ( magnetism)

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 19, 2019, 06:20:36 PM
F6FLT also was correct that the original Maxwell's equations were 20 equations with 20 unknowns and quaternion means 4D math. By raping these into vectors we lost a whole dimension, but the math got simpler for engineers to do stuff. That still means that we lost a whole dimension of stuff that does not appear in our equations.

Btw Maxwell's stuff was not published by him, but by the uni faculty.

Why I have such high regard towards Tesla is that for example his charge shuttling, that cannot be understood with vectors or tensors

https://www.freeenergyplanet.biz/energy-from-vacuum/teslas-shuttling-of-potential-energy-and-barretts-extension.html

so tesla did not do quaternion math, but he could build stuff that just did it. so he could visualize it
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 20, 2019, 02:10:30 AM
Spectralanalyse:
to see energy, to hear energy 4d
to see energy in mass state, to hear energy in mass state in 4 d

Fibonacci :What are these numbers of the True Scale representing ? Codex

thermal noise or thermal sound

" thermal rendering or thermal image "
f. e.  :
https://www.msx.org/wiki/Yamaha_CX7/128 (https://www.msx.org/wiki/Yamaha_CX7/128)  audio-signals/ video-signals  engineering,  80'ees

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality)

4d reversible

White Color Black

Black Color White

Magnetic Amplifier : AC-circuit, DC- controle-circuit

Electric Amplifier    : AC-controle-circuit, DC- circuit
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 22, 2019, 12:36:28 PM
Maybe even the brainwashed priests can imagine, what it means if you are trying to prove that modern science is correct opposed to if you approach free energy from a point of view that it is being withheld.

In the first case you stop investigating before experiments or you stop when the first experiment shows that some law holds true. This is the biggest reason no new discoveries have happened in 100 years. Actually something has happened, but not in the EM field of science. This is because the resistance of contemporary science is not so dominant in optical field.

The other option is much more interesting and gives you a better understanding of the subject. You start to notice problems in the equations and laws and also the fringe cases when they do not apply at all.

Why free energy is so good at hiding is that we never look deep enough. Coils and caps do not matter as much, as the stuff before them.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 22, 2019, 12:53:32 PM
Belfior, really ?

and in the R of             R. I. P
Torricelli,  G. Gallilei, Watt,.....  : clerus- membership
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 22, 2019, 01:11:21 PM

I think we can agree that it does not mean "how to find new things" ...

What frequency does the RLC tank see, if it receives PWM signals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation#/media/File:Delta_PWM.svg

Does it resonate on the modulated sine wave?
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 22, 2019, 01:21:58 PM
LCR-tank : action/ reaction freedom degree ? LCR- tank modulation
signals/ pulses: mono-/poly- characteristic ? Or " signal modulation "
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 22, 2019, 01:38:05 PM
In the first case you stop investigating before experiments or you stop when the first experiment shows that some law holds true.

Yes by Lactantius the word religion comes from ligare, which means to tie, religare means repeatedly keep tying. By Cicero it came from the word lego, that means to read, but it was always meant in a sense of an obligation.

Yes the research is stopped when it contradicts something that is held true. What is held true at that may come from ignoring something, as ignoring something simplifies, and thus makes the understanding easier, but at that it makes the conclusions faulty. It is like believing that Earth is flat, because this is how we see it, it's simpler. But it restricts the understanding. The modern science as i said ignores connections in time and space, which doesn't really restrict less.

It cannot even describe gravity in the presence of more than two bodies. Newton broke himself free from restrictions, by relying on the general principles of hermeticism and emerald tablets, instead of the doctrines at the time. This enabled him to create a good theory, except the way how he too simplified and ignored some things, then it was again hammered into a doctrine that was established as solely right. Just one example.

What concerns religion though, it is not just a belief. It also contains knowledge that enables to understand, and calling it all belief, rejects that as well. Like emerald tablets were a part of the religion of ancient Egypt, yet they contain universal principles that enable to understand. This is often the case, a lot of knowledge became a part of the religion, because religion was all the world view at the time, no knowledge could be accepted separate from it, thus the only way to make that knowledge known, was to include it into religion. Thus there may be parts of the religion that are good knowledge, which doesn't mean that all the rest of the religion is true.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 22, 2019, 01:54:50 PM
"lego", 1.Persona Singularis, Praesens from legere : to read, Substantiv lex Nominativ,  Singular legisAkk.  , ....... lego : I read " about" ( Wein-Lese),  ~ ponere

Lex : deformed phonetical : " ( parlamentary)  Lesung", ; Church : " Lesung" von Mattias,  Lukas,.....

To differ : https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/reddere (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/reddere) I read ( me)" in"
and http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/25678/ligo-ligare-ligavi-ligatus
Religion : from " religio" to " relegere"
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 22, 2019, 02:52:33 PM
Yes by Lactantius the word religion comes from ligare, which means to tie, religare means repeatedly keep tying. By Cicero it came from the word lego, that means to read, but it was always meant in a sense of an obligation.

Yes the research is stopped when it contradicts something that is held true. What is held true at that may come from ignoring something, as ignoring something simplifies, and thus makes the understanding easier, but at that it makes the conclusions faulty. It is like believing that Earth is flat, because this is how we see it, it's simpler. But it restricts the understanding. The modern science as i said ignores connections in time and space, which doesn't really restrict less.

It cannot even describe gravity in the presence of more than two bodies. Newton broke himself free from restrictions, by relying on the general principles of hermeticism and emerald tablets, instead of the doctrines at the time. This enabled him to create a good theory, except the way how he too simplified and ignored some things, then it was again hammered into a doctrine that was established as solely right. Just one example.

What concerns religion though, it is not just a belief. It also contains knowledge that enables to understand, and calling it all belief, rejects that as well. Like emerald tablets were a part of the religion of ancient Egypt, yet they contain universal principles that enable to understand. This is often the case, a lot of knowledge became a part of the religion, because religion was all the world view at the time, no knowledge could be accepted separate from it, thus the only way to make that knowledge known, was to include it into religion. Thus there may be parts of the religion that are good knowledge, which doesn't mean that all the rest of the religion is true.

Let me recuse your mind by :a. the  Theories ( and Astro-/Nano-physical " peers reviewed and repeated demonstrations" )
with Nobel Prize awarded ( Physics, Chemistry) : evolutionary

b. many scientists in older daies has been clerus-members :
opposed science results contra church constitution and Dogma : Pope(PATRIARCA) :

The VOICE OF GOD

ergo : PAPA(L) INFALLIBILITY by GOD INFALLIBILITY

Since REFORMATION : cuius regio,  cuius religio;  many PAPAS ( and MAMAS)

Beside: terrestrical and mental interests clearly : sexual,  Dynaste behind

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

One GODness ( in Unity, Binity,Trinity,.....),  many religionssections

c. By daily quantum technology use , included quantum bio-chemistry/- electric ;    the smallest power plant in future : based by quantum software = virtual power plant in Eprom- size
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 22, 2019, 03:09:01 PM
opposed science results contra church constitution and Dogma :

In essence you are talking just about two world views, in which one appeared to be right in some things, proving understanding these things in the other wrong. This is taken as this world view is supreme in everything. It is again a simplification, and ignoring things. Some things in religion, such as emerald tablets, again may provide something not present in science, and might prove some things in the science wrong or not exact.

Religion yes more likely comes from ligo, not lego. Ligo means mattock, a kind of pickaxe, but as a verb it is understood to mean binding or tying.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: lancaIV on January 22, 2019, 03:25:28 PM
"In essence you are talking just about two world views..... "or " in essence I am talking about one world by view-point of two "
Same opinion : different opinion reazon, arguments pro/ contra

Serious or like " agente provocateur" : danger of misunderstanding the action/ reaction ! Friendly or aggressive !?
Between family- members, friends, work-teams, sport-teams et cetera ....
Religion is also " Moderation", from past to today to future :

peacefull and with patience the right way searching and finding
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: ayeaye on January 22, 2019, 03:39:59 PM
Serious or like " agente provocateur"

This should not be a matter, this should be about logic. But weirdly it always appears to be a matter, why everything is made so exceedingly emotional, emotion versus logical argument. Find some reason to argue something, then push with hands and legs and teeth and nails, convincing that this is the only and completely right. Who become convinced, learn the method of convincing too, and find their obligation to be to convince others the same way.

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Bob Smith on January 22, 2019, 07:20:57 PM
One of the simplest DC oscillators I've used is a reverse-wired relay switch and battery.
Bob
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 23, 2019, 12:55:05 PM
One of the simplest DC oscillators I've used is a reverse-wired relay switch and battery.
Bob

How fast can we switch with a relay so that it won't break in few hours?

The simplest solution so far has been a BJT in reverse avalance so the base is hanging. I think it needs something inductive on the secondary side and not just an LED to work though.

I have also seen 2 mosfets connected to a battery and switching. Can't find the video anymore

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 23, 2019, 01:59:45 PM
I wonder if I can connect a thyristor to this and make it switch? So find the thyristor that switches at 9V. Then charge the cap and when the cap is at 9V the thyristor (that has its gate also on the positive side of the cap) dumps the cap through itself and closes when the voltage drops.
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 23, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
This would give at least kilohertz

reed switch that stays open until the cap is charged and then it dumps, when the current stops flowing
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Bob Smith on January 23, 2019, 06:57:07 PM
How fast can we switch with a relay so that it won't break in few hours?

The simplest solution so far has been a BJT in reverse avalance so the base is hanging. I think it needs something inductive on the secondary side and not just an LED to work though.

I have also seen 2 mosfets connected to a battery and switching. Can't find the video anymore
What I've found with the reverse wired relays is that they self-oscillate at a fairly low frequency. That can be played with a bit with resistors. The smaller relays seem to run faster. But as you say, wear and tear seems to have its effect on them. I believe the internal arcing also wears away at the contacts after a while, at least from what I've seen when running them for extended lengths of time. The trick might be to run the DPDT relay at the lowest possible power.  I've run them off small (5w?) solar panels.
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Bob Smith on January 23, 2019, 06:58:31 PM
Question:
Is a tank circuit (simple L-C) an oscillator if the cap is discharging  and the inductor is powered by ambient energy?
Bob
Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Belfior on January 23, 2019, 08:25:19 PM
Question:
Is a tank circuit (simple L-C) an oscillator if the cap is discharging  and the inductor is powered by ambient energy?
Bob

Well it must be, but how much ambient can you get?

Title: Re: Simplest oscillators for DC
Post by: Bob Smith on January 26, 2019, 05:16:57 AM

Quote from: Bob Smith on January 23, 2019, 06:58:31 PM (https://overunity.com/18110/simplest-oscillators-for-dc/msg530608/#msg530608)Question:
Is a tank circuit (simple L-C) an oscillator if the cap is discharging  and the inductor is powered by ambient energy?
Bob
[/font]

Well it must be, but how much ambient can you get?

Probably not more than a few millivolts. But with the low millivolts, to get a tank circuit, wires can be twisted around each other in place of a capacitor, for very low pico farad capacitance: