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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?  (Read 83464 times)

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2007, 02:08:20 AM »
@ Tinu...you must not know where to look.
My circuit like I said is not grounded..however, I understand that the field field is in the room with me...that's why i devised this test to prove to all it IS NOT PARASITIC C that is behind the one wire illumination. Come look at my Proof2 video...and you may be able to see the Radiant ;)


Here's my proof that this in an influx of radiant energy!!!   http://www.youtube.com/v/oIidGfe0sPM


As for the pyrosol tests...I will get back to them shortly, as I have shown this is all about R...specifically negative R...So I am interested in making more beads to use as the R, instead of me :)

jeffc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #61 on: October 07, 2007, 09:09:20 AM »
@ Tinu...you must not know where to look.
My circuit like I said is not grounded..however, I understand that the field field is in the room with me...that's why i devised this test to prove to all it IS NOT PARASITIC C that is behind the one wire illumination. Come look at my Proof2 video...and you may be able to see the Radiant ;)


Here's my proof that this in an influx of radiant energy!!!   http://www.youtube.com/v/oIidGfe0sPM


As for the pyrosol tests...I will get back to them shortly, as I have shown this is all about R...specifically negative R...So I am interested in making more beads to use as the R, instead of me :)

@RadiantEnRg

Great video!  Please bear with everyone as attempts to disprove are presented.  Your findings are exciting, and become more convincing over time.  Although it must not be easy to have potential "flaws" pointed out, your ability to work with this online team to rule out these things is going to make a huge difference in how quickly your discoveries are accepted.

I've seen some great minds on this forum, and I think you will soon find they will be assisting in replications which will help further your efforts. 

Thanks again for the continued investigation, openness with the details, and videos.

Regards,
jeffc

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #62 on: October 07, 2007, 10:28:46 AM »
@ JeffC....Thx, I am glad you appreciate my experiments, my willingness to divulge info, and the videos :D
I don't mind people trying to rationalize my experiences against what they have been taught. I guess I have the benefit of not being trained the "right" way lol. I understand where they are coming from, it's like me, I used to believe the Twin Towers were brought down by a kerosene fire....pshhh...lol, but with time people will slowly come around, especially with the help of the internet!!...We shall use the machine to rid ourselves of the " of Babylon"...a lil bible refrence lol....But yeah...I hope we all can work together and gain energy independence....Once I get my financial aid I am going to step this up, gonna get a Neon sign transformer and make me some honkin coils...until then I will continue to do experiments with what I can scrounge up, and further my knowledge of the truth....I think it will save me a lot of money in the long run....well I am gonna get back to it...ttyl.

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2007, 10:33:23 AM »
Ahhh...it cut out my bible reference...It said ....w.h.o.r.e of Babylon...lol anyway I am getting back to my experimenting/building later guys.

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2007, 12:00:59 PM »
@ Tinu...you must not know where to look.
My circuit like I said is not grounded..however, I understand that the field field is in the room with me...that's why i devised this test to prove to all it IS NOT PARASITIC C that is behind the one wire illumination. Come look at my Proof2 video...and you may be able to see the Radiant ;)


Here's my proof that this in an influx of radiant energy!!!   http://www.youtube.com/v/oIidGfe0sPM

@RadiantEnRg,

I am not against your experiments. Far from my attitude. Like I said, I appreciate them a lot.

I?ve conducted similar experiments, several times in the near past.
There is one more parasitic C you have to have in mind all the time. This is C over length of any conductor (actually of any body). Avramenko plug is working because any wire has a distributed capacitance over its length.

It may be the case that in your last video, the C over the length of the plate is much higher than the C through the insulating foil, thus possibly explaining why the neon is brighter in one case. I don?t know for sure ? you have a particular setup, which is at your disposal. And I?m not arguing. I just want the subject to be properly discussed.

Also, it is not necessarily always the case when the circuit is primarily closed to the battery. For high voltages there are plenty of cases where you can close a circuit locally and see a current through it.
For experimenting with such cases, I suggest you take a common fluorescent tube and check the E field around it. You?ll see the E-field is very intense and it is decreasing with distance. By placing conductors, Avramenko plugs, neon test lamps, you can easily make a case when by using the existing E gradient, the test lamp will light being in complete electrical isolation. (you can suspend the whole setup using a non-conductive wire).

I?ll wait for more people to come and share their experience.
Again, please do not consider I am against you. I?d just like to nail down the ?radiant energy? if real, to describe it in common terms and to put it to work. All effects are real and they are very intriguing but so far I couldn?t pinpoint a specific experiment that can not be explained by conventional understanding.

Many thanks,
Tinu


RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #65 on: October 07, 2007, 12:20:22 PM »
Well maybe you missed exactly what it is I did. In that video Proof2, the plate you see is a stainless steel plate,one side is coated with an insulating tape....the other side is bare. It is connected directly to the battery terminal.when shorted the neon is very bright...but if parasitic C was the culprit that plate would work MUCH BETTER then my body, as it is directly coupled to battery. It only gets a little brighter so there is a little parasitic C(when I get very close), but you cannot honestly think that my body is a better coupler then that plate can you??? God I hope not......

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #66 on: October 07, 2007, 12:25:41 PM »
Notice I show direct contact(very bright neon), then i show Parasitic C(plate flipped over)...there is only a VERY thin layer of tape on that plate....If parasitic C was the culprit....The plate would be MUCH BETTER then ground or my body...but as u can see in the video...my NON DIRECT COUPLED body makes the neon brighter then the connected plate cap I had made......Parasitic C CANNOT BE THE FORCE here.....k circuit not grounded so ground is not a direct coupler(nor is my body)...the plate IS directly connected to battery...it is no where near as bright!...you can see that the DIRECT parasitic C coupling is rather weak compared to the neon when I touch it(again I am not touching battery at all...THE PLATE WAS!!!!)

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #67 on: October 07, 2007, 12:27:20 PM »
So I have no harsh feelings :D .... but your argument IS DEAD!!

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #68 on: October 07, 2007, 12:42:20 PM »
Your body in direct contact with the neon lamp can be (and actually is) a much better coupler than an insulating foil. Your body?s capacitance is nF or larger. That of a foil&plate is pF at best.
Two (or more) series nF is much larger than any series with one pF?

If you want to be rigorous, place a piece on insulating foil on your finger and check again. What do you think?

One question, though: how it comes that radiant energy always likes to go to the battery? (I mean, if it is really attracted by the neon/discharge or anything else there, it should accumulate there, in that place. It should be collected, diverted etc. But no, it always tends to go back to the battery)

Glad that no harsh feelings!

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #69 on: October 07, 2007, 01:17:16 PM »
Ok...ask yourself what it "could" be coupling too..(the battery) That plate/film cap is connected directly to the battery k??.....the neon is soldered onto the HV...My body is NOT touching the battery...So even if my body was a better cap..which I doubt it is (as I am not connected to battery)....the plate is better simply because it IS in direct contact with battery...(the field IS ON IT).following?? See your argument is that the room is filled with batteries V field..well the battery is not grounded so it's field is localized....the direct connection to the battery makes it a MUCH BETTER path back to battery.....As for my body to better, you would have o be saying that the connection from my body through the air to the battery, then to the neon is better then the battery directly (clipped), then capacitively to the neon???...Sorry no my friend..watch this video and maybe you will see my point...p.s. My Electrical Engineer friend argued the same point as you..except, when He saw the video he immediately recognized the validay of my test and now says he needs to read how they say Radiant works, because I proved it wasn't parasitic C...anyway video here

http://www.youtube.com/v/etONSNthsSE .....oh and just so you know...Only one side of that plate is covered in insulating tape..(field directly to bare metal...surely thats better coupling then field through me then plate???)

http://www.youtube.com/v/ujgLiG7miUk ....I just made this video too..will be done finalizing in a few minutes.....tape on my fingers...no part of  my body touching battery...THIS NOW KILLS YOUR ARGUMENT :D 





RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #70 on: October 07, 2007, 01:21:36 PM »
Sorry bout the spelling errors...I am tired and my keyboard is really bad about lil stuff blocking the buttons...anyway the videos need a couple minutes to finalize...but I hope this satisfies your suspicions about it being parasitic C.....I think I proved otherwise w/o a doubt now

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #71 on: October 07, 2007, 01:24:45 PM »
Hmmm...I don't know whats going on with videos, but if you go here you can see them.....they're Proof3 and Proof4

http://youtube.com/profile?user=RadiantEnrG

RadiantEnRg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #72 on: October 07, 2007, 02:18:37 PM »
I don't know whats up with youtube..it seems they may be suppressing me??...video says done..but not working
So I uploaded them to google

here they are..........         http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5391877654635220383&hl=en   &   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5057363605077932659&hl=en

Super

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #73 on: October 07, 2007, 03:26:57 PM »
maybe this document from Alexander Frolov can help to understand what this setup shows ...

http://intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/FreeEnergy.pdf starts with this at page 5

question is how to make it become useful OU  :D
« Last Edit: October 07, 2007, 03:50:32 PM by Super »

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?
« Reply #74 on: October 07, 2007, 03:29:58 PM »

Ok. Thanks for the videos. They are great!

I guess we have to continue our discussions after digesting all the arguments and after you taking some sleep. It must have been a very long night for you. And I appreciate your continuous efforts.

I suggest you bring also your friend into the discussion.
I?ll try on my side to get a decent video-camera and to replicate whatever will come out of this endeavor. (Right now I have only a still camera, which is very poor for making videos.)

Meanwhile, I?ll throw in some thoughts:
1. I was speaking about the battery as a first experiment only. But as soon as the voltage is raised (oscillator and ignition coil), the battery voltage become negligible as is superseded by the existing high voltages.
2. Unfortunately, for the car ignition coil, the primary and secondary are electrically connected. Ideally, for refined experiments, they would better not be connected. But being given the existing circumstances, the connection point between the primary and the secondary is the common ground. If it?s to judge various capacitances, I suggest being in relation to this point, which happens to be also the metal (conductive) case of the car ignition coil. Hence, the coil being placed on the ground, a strong coupling exists with the ground (floor, furniture& nearby objects, walls etc).
3. I don?t get it why the direct contact to the battery shuts the neon off (Prof3). This is a strange behavior. I wonder if you move the clip on the other diode, will the neon shut off too? This is something I have to dig on.
4. The white wire from the coil to the neon (clip) is actually something that introduces a large variability. Is the white wire connected to the above-spoken coil ground or to the other terminal of the coil? (It wouldn?t make much difference though, because of relatively high voltages and relatively low resistance of the primary winding but it is worth to know). Anyway, the fact that the neon is always light it means that a small current flows through the white wire. Basically the clip is splitting the blue neon in two capacitors. On one semi period the left part is conducting and on the other half, the right part. 
5. Noticed that in Proof4, when the orange neon glows, the right side of the blue neon gets off? Well, what does it mean? To me it still looks like capacitive effects. Your fingers break the symmetry in capacitances and the blue neon shows it.

Keep on with your excellent work and accept my apologies for any language barrier you may rightfully feel as coming from my side.
Respectfully,

Tinu