This may ruffle some hackles. I am going to speak here completely bluntly.

I may have been somewhat remiss in my last post.

One name comes to mind as an instant attack whenever any sort of claim or demonstration is made, by most anyone. It has been this way since I have been here.......... Get the Poynt?

Now, I may just sound somewhat Grumpy when I say this, but whenever any truly scientific viewpoint is launched, another name jumps in to attack. Also has been this way from the beginning.

What is worse is both misquote and/or misrepresent the "viewpoint" that they individually supposedly believe. Neither of them post evidential results of their own "experiments" of any kind..... 

However, the techniques applied by both are incredibly similar.

It is true that a small amount of force can control a much larger force. Thought works the same way. Ridicule, make a laughingstock of someone, and others tend to quit listening to them. Downplay anything possibly important, and promote error whenever possible.

It is called disinformation, and the techniques are age old. Whether purposeful, or ego fed, is the only question in my mind.

Paul Andrulis

Hi Paul, 

In your pancake coil experiment you use a square wave that has a DC component of zero (i.e. square wave that swings to + voltage and then to - voltage).   So that's why you see the "kickback" voltage, typical of interupting the current through an inductor, at EVERY zero crossing.  You're saying it is appearing at the LEADING edge, but it's more like the TRAILING edge of the previous pulse, that's the proper way to think about it.  There can be pulses at the leading edge, but you need to varry you pulse width to realy notice that phenomena with the right setup, with a 50% pulse width (or square wave) it's not going to work.

@ poynt,  I'm not annoyed, just frustrated.

EM

sheesh Paul, you are paranoid you know?

i was never trying to make a laughing stock of you. i am trying to get to the bottom of the kick mystery---still.

yes i call bs when i see it, and do you think i'm the only one? they may not post, but i guarantee you there are many more.

what i said about Lenz's law and cemf still holds true, but in this case your setup really is a passive differentiator made from a series resistor and shunt inductor. it was my mistake thinking it was cemf in this case. don't worry, i'm not in cahoots with grumpy.

sorry you read me wrong. if i was only interested in derailing true research (and you've done some good research here with this experiment), i would be doing things quite different. also, gk and otto deserve 10 times the amount of flak i dish out, but no one here has the balls to do it. no one presses them about their claims and so their disinformation lives on and creates what we have today on the Steven Mark thread, a mishmash of senseless unproven garbage being hailed as the "best" research going on here...poppycock!

i had hoped to stir up some dialogue about your experiment, but not much came of it until posted what I thought it was. now you're scorning me for admitting i was wrong....no one here ever admits they're wrong. made a mistake in doing that also i guess.

just takes things at face value and forget about the MIB thing. or not, the choice is yours.

Even when you are told that your pulses are crap you refuse to accept it.  Go ahead and drown in your self-gratifying BS.

You keep claiming that I misquote Tesla, yet you only repeat the hearsay and BS on the web about him.

Come on Paul, try to prove me wrong.  You can't.  If you had any sense you would listen to every word I say and apply it, but you never will.  You could get rid of the neg pulses, clamp the crap out of the pos one (to raise them way above zero) and use them to excite a third coil - wa-la - RE coming out your ass.  But you won't even try cause you think we're all full of crap.

I'll keep trying to help you a little longer, but I am tiring.

You made a rediculous statement to MIB and now you accuse Poynt99 and myself of being MIB?  Hillarious.

Allright - all BS and joking aside.  Let's move on.

About the differentiation, see attached image - notice the pulses coincide with the transitions of the square wave?  The top image is double differentiation - notice the pulse is tighter but you get a quick reversal at each pulse?

G

Hmmmmm. Interesting.

Two people trying to through out bull**** as truth. Both seemingly opposing, but serving the same end. Same corporation? I don't need to name any names. It should be clear to any reader.

To one of them, nice switch. Nailed to the proverbial wall with the back-emf concept, switched to "differentiated pulses" at the drop of a hat. I like that term.... sounds impressive, yet completely meaningless. Just like "transformer action".

To the other: No, you wouldn't know Tesla if he bit you in the keaster, apparently. The "Death Ray" used the magnifying transmitter for power only, to drive a linear particle accelerator. (Yes, particle...) Oh, I forgot, you ignore what Tesla himself said. You seem to know more than him.

I don't think you are MIB gentlemen, I think you are worse than MIB. I think you are posers. Attention hounds. Intellectually effete.

If you were MIB you would be fired for being so lousy and transparent at the job. I hear quite a bit of talk, mostly BS, so why don't each of you do something more enlightening and satisfying, like build something.

Paul Andrulis

Stanley Meyer used the proper wave,but how he was able to do it ?

A conical coil producing and EMP would definately cause a stir. If it was up against an aluminum plate then the energy coming off the edges would be very sharp. That, I have posted before. But that example uses 2 pancakes and the destination metal is allowed to travel. Also in the experiment the traveling washer does not tumble. Nobody mentioned that here.

--giantkiller.

@ Duff,

you're probably the only one interested in this, so i'm just posting the netlist. it's the simple single inductor version, which won't give the exact results as Paul's but close enough. you'll see the differentiation effect and voltage peak anyway:

Vgen 1 0 Pulse -10 10 0 10n 10n 6.25u 12.5u
Rgen 1 2 50
L1 2 3 20uH
R1 3 0 1.2

@poynt

Ok - maybe I can learn something here, so please give me some explanation.

To me the circuit does not represent Pauls circuit in that you don't show both bifilar inductors with opposing polarity.

The differentiation is bascially voltage across the inductor as a  result of the RL time constant.

I like the output waveform but I don't understand why the -10 volt pulse

If I apply a positve pulse everything goes to hell - I don't get that at all...


-Duff

@poynt

Ok - maybe I can learn something here, so please give me some explanation.

To me the circuit does not represent Pauls circuit in that you don't show both bifilar inductors with opposing polarity.

The differentiation is bascially voltage across the inductor as a  result of the RL time constant.

I like the output waveform but I don't understand why the -10 volt pulse

If I apply a positve pulse everything goes to hell - I don't get that at all...


-Duff

@ Duff

the single inductor shows you the same effect, just a slightly different wave form. but here is the dual bucking version since you asked. i threw in a small parallel capacitor for good measure.

schematic, wave form, wave form vertical zoomed, more or less like Paul did in his post. the netlist is here also. sorry for the funny net numbers.

i am sure Paul's generator is swinging plus and minus 10V, so that's what i did. you won't get the right levels measured if you use only +10V and 0V. does it make sense now?

@ Duff

the single inductor shows you the same effect, just a slightly different wave form. but here is the dual bucking version since you asked. i threw in a small parallel capacitor for good measure.

schematic, wave form, wave form vertical zoomed, more or less like Paul did in his post. the netlist is here also. sorry for the funny net numbers.

i am sure Paul's generator is swinging plus and minus 10V, so that's what i did. you won't get the right levels measured if you use only +10V and 0V. does it make sense now?

@Ponyt,

I understand what your saying however to me it does not account for the way Paul
made the connections. I'm still thinking  my orginal post is closer even though
I did not get the correct voltage levels.

Your bucking coils I buy, but they are not bifilar and reflect the connection Paul
made.

The schematics will hopefully illustrate what I'm saying.

(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7523/kickcir01ho3.jpg)


I appreciate your work in posting the models and hope you can see my point.



-Duff