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: Hubbard coil  (Read 371415 times)

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #345 on: January 05, 2011, 11:47:24 PM »
Well sorry you can't read posts at poynts place,
However, this man has an opinion on "How This Works"!!

From Here
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=457.msg8818;topicseen#msg8818

User "itworks"
Quote:
Chet, I believe Larmor's equation forms the basis for Barbat's work. The main shifts of paradigm are 1) We have to accept that low "effective" mass electrons actually are lower mass than normal. They have been observed for decades doing things that indicate they have lower mass. But because they tend to look like they are producing more energy out than in, and people are convinced that is impossible, they have made up other "relativistic" explanations for their behavior, and called them low "effective" mass, meaning "it looks like it's low mass, but we don't believe it."

The second paradigm shift Barbat is responsible for is the rejection of Helmholtz's famous claim that Newton's laws of thermodynamics applied to electrodynamics and magnetic energy. Barbat has gone through Helmholtz's original paper of 1847 that was presented to - and rejected by - the Berlin Society of Physicists. Helmholtz went on to self-publish the paper, with the disingenuous claim that it had been "read before" the Society, and he won all kinds of awards from royalty for it. However, it was based on flawed science, and Barbat has gone through it carefully and shown exactly why it was incorrect. But, as some of Barbat's writings say, Helmholtz did get something right: If forces exist which are not in line with each other, (which now we know induction and magnetic force not to be in-line), then there exists the possibility for infinite gain or loss of energy. TRUE. Helmholtz just assumed that all forces were in-line, so this situation wouldn't exist.

Think about it. An electron continually circles around a photon, without falling to the center or falling off. No one puts energy into it to make it do that; it just goes all the time. Additionally, that electron constantly emits energy and mass in the form of photons. No one is putting fuel in or material, yet out comes energy and mass, constantly. That fact in itself shows that we're nuts if we don't think there's infinite energy out there.

Barbat's genius lies in his willingness to accept that Hubbard's generator did what the reporters said it did, rather than poo-pooing it because it was unexplainable at the time. If it did work, then there had to be something wrong with our accepted version of the law of conservation of energy. So he went back through about two centuries of original papers, from Newton, Ampere, Gauss, Helmholtz, Maxwell, even Einstein, Bohr, you name it. And it was at Helmholtz where the science went haywire, he shows.

The other breakthrough Barbat made was realizing why Hendershot couldn't make his generator work when he tried again around 1960: Copper wire was now shiny, and lacked the cupric oxide coating of old wire. Knowing that, I believe Barbat could have revived the Hubbard and Hendershot type of generators, except that radium is no longer available in the quantities they worked with in the 1920s. So Barbat started looking into other photoconductors that are mentioned in his patent, as they require wavelengths more easily obtainable.

sigma16

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #346 on: January 06, 2011, 12:03:41 AM »
"Low mass electrons" just means that electrons have a low mass as compared to particles with greater mass.  Someone misinterpreted this, as meaning that there is some form of electron with a lower mass than other electrons, and now everyone is jumping on board the "ship of fools".

sigma16

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #347 on: January 06, 2011, 12:59:24 AM »
I often wondered if this was related to Hubbard.

http://www.gnucash.org/mirrors/mirrors/jnaudin.free.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

I feel the only safe free energy device would be a magnetic device such as that.

Back in Hubbards day, 21MHZ would have been a very high frequency but it could have been reached through harmonics produced by heterdyne.

One the flip side, Hubbard does not appear to have a cooling system on his transformer and it will get very hot. Although I saw someone write something about the cables getting hot going to the transformer and the transformer had huge wires coming from it.

You will note that the patent calls for "soft iron" and I suspect that this is because it has permanency. The permanency would produce friction as the domains resist change and this friction could cascade electrons from the FE56

NOTE that the Hubbard coil in the boat photo has four wires going to it. Two to activate the process and two to remove the energy the coil produced.

Why the step up voltage and closed loop coils? Higher voltage means higher tension. The higher the tension the higher the velocity of the current. The higher the velocity, the more mass is extracted from the inductor through centrifugal force and subsequently more current flows into the coil.

The light being introduced into Barbat's patent is used to remove electrons from the coil similar to Meyer's laser ozone generator or air gas processor as Meyer called it. In reality, it was an laser accelerator or something along those lines.

NOTE the 4 wires just like the drawing Hubbard made: Unless two of those are water hoses for cooling..

Are you smoking crack again, Buzz?  Man, you gotta lay off that stuff!  It's addictive!

Looks like more than four wires in this picture.  You can not see where they go or how they are connected, but they look like they go to the motor.  Where are the oscillator and transformer?

The drawing has two wires at one end (output?) and several wires at the other end - looks like at least eight wires.

The radium was used on the spark plugs to get a faster gap breakdown.  You can do the same with a UV source.

sigma16

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #348 on: January 06, 2011, 01:52:14 AM »
I noted the output coil which is plainly visible - 2 wires. The other end has 4 wires showing.

So... 2 + 4 = 6

Still learning math from that 3rd world alternative high school physics site? I seem to recall you getting sideways with the American Troll Society for that.

Four wires are plainly visible running in parallel from the coil towards the motor. There may be two more wires visible coming from the left side of the transformer. (2 large and 2 small)

As for the rest of your rant, 3rd world eye doctor as well? Lens Crafters is having a two for one sale - Two pairs of glasses for the price of one! Too drunk to see straight? Look on the bright side, now you have as much street cred as IST.

Hope that helps! :)  BitchSlap!

Stop slapping yourself, it's a sign of insanity, or are you just feenin' for hit of the pipe?

It could easily be 6 or 8 wires between the motor and the generator.  Are you gonna tell me those are shadows?  Crackheads can't count, as you have just proven.

In the pic of the coil itself, it is hand-drawn, and the one end has at least 8 strands.

I see you have no comment on the spark gap, no comment on the magnetized cores, no comment on the distributor and HV supply...

Here's you arse back again, Trollboy.

sigma16

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #349 on: January 06, 2011, 03:56:45 AM »
This image is from the same source as the one that shows both ends of the coil assembly, dumbass TrollBABY!

I doubt anyone would have drawn the frayed insulation on the wires at one end of the coil and not the other, Troll--toy-wannabe.

8-cylinder distributor - 8 outer coils - rotates a field, TrollBABY.

Where did you get this Fe atomic crap anyway?  NMR freaks and all that crap?  You are to dumb to make that crap up.  Your handlers must have spoon fed it up your arse.  Your handlers should be proud of the insane idiot that you have become.  They sure know how to pick 'em...TrollBABY


forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #350 on: January 06, 2011, 01:25:36 PM »
TheBuzz

You are right. This bad quality image is probably far far younger then from 1919. It appear to be a later replication attempt. Interesting why they spoiled photos.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #351 on: January 06, 2011, 02:19:46 PM »
SSOOoooooo...............

It works like this.............

No it works like that----------------

No No No It works like This.........................

Why,, an arguement like this could go to "Infinity and beyond"[BUZZ]

Or you could just Hold your breath until he says you're right
{Grumpy]
Like little Kids!

Yes you TOO fight like brothers having a rough time with sibbling rivalry.

But there is one thing that is self evident,you agree

                              iTWORKS

Chet
PsForest,
yes the pics are very poor quality.my eyes are still bleeding from trying to tell WTHeck they're fighting over?

The story goes that this man Hubbard was given this
"HOW TO DO" by an Angel.

The story also goes he died A drunk pennyless.

Perhaps the Angel didn't give it to Hubbard for a boat ride
Perhaps He gave it to Us ?
For the men on these few pages of cyberspace to put the pieces together to bring about the change.................

                           

sigma16

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #352 on: January 06, 2011, 04:39:27 PM »
Forest,

One is a sketch and the other a photo from 90 years ago. Nothing nefarious going on, that was just the technology of the day and subsequent scan.

Barbat is a smart guy that did his homework and he probably knows what he is talking about. There is no evidence of Grumpy's "rotating fields" or whatever that was all about. Grumpy / Sigma16 is IST without the smiley faces.

Yes the photo and sketch are different, but both have the ring of 8 coils and one in the center.  The thought that the oputput coil can be inside and/or outside the 8-coils probably escaped your thoughts because you are such a smart ASS.

Barbat is as confused by terminology as you are.  Rather than enlighten assholes like you, I prefer to leave you in the dark, with the wondrous smell of your perpetual BS.

You prove your idiocy beyond a doubt by ASSuming every purported OU device actually works and that it works because of this bogus idea about mass to energy conversion.  Most don't work at all, and the trick is to use the mass, not convert it.

markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #353 on: January 06, 2011, 04:40:56 PM »
I havnt read this thread in detail but am I missing something here?
"
Driven By Radium

In 1919 Hubbard represented the apparatus as being capable of extracting electrical energy directly from the air, but he admitted yesterday that this had been merely a subterfuge to protect his patent rights, and that, as a matter of fact, it had been a device for extracting electrical energy from radium, by means of a series of transformers which stepped up the rays.

He declined to go into detail in regard to the exact manner in which he managed to extract power from radium -- but said that, so far as he had been able to determine, there was no great difference between the Detroit machine and his.

"I never heard of this Lester J. Hendershot, the Pittsburgh electrical engineer who is demonstrating the motor", Hubbard said, "but it must be remembered that I worked on the invention for two years in Pittsburgh -- in 1921 and 1922. It was a Dr. Greenslade who represented the people who were financing me at the time -- but, of course, if the people who bought out most of my interest in the invention were to bring it out as their own machinery, they would probably do it through a man with whom I had never worked. I was employed by the radium Chemical Company at the time I was working in Pitsburgh".





forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #354 on: January 06, 2011, 06:38:43 PM »
My intuition tells me that :

1) There was no radium inside Hubbard device
2) The source of both Hubbard and Hendershot devices are THE SAME ; be it angels or whatever (maybe Tesla?)

from above I conclude that this device worked like a modified DC or AC motor-generator and we have one patent very near to the solution yet not exactly the same : Alexander patent US3913004
It can generate up to 3 times more output then input so I believe it can be routed back to self-power itself via large diode bridge

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #355 on: January 06, 2011, 06:53:46 PM »
Well,
When I spoke to William Barbat last month,That was the biggest question ,and perhaps the only reason I called.

Was there any isotope, radiation etc........ Required?

ABSOLUTELY NOT !!
End of story ........................

Chet

sigma16

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #356 on: January 06, 2011, 07:28:00 PM »
We are all missing something. Sigma16 claim he knows all about these free energy devices yet has never built anything, demonstrated anything or disclosed anything.

Who knows what is true or what Hubbard really said (if anything) or if he was telling the truth. Ya just learn what you can, and take a stab at it on a bench.

For me, since I don't know enough about the subject to invent something original, I look for patterns. There are only so many ways to do something and I am sure many of these guys were doing the same thing different ways.

For example the mutual inductance of the Cook patent and the coils of the Hubbard coil are the same and that is mighty interesting to me. Cook predated radium but had cu oxide wire. Barbet probably knows what he is talking about.

I never claimed to know about all OU devices, but I have learned to spot the ones that are probably BS.  I have demonstrated very important things, which everyone dismissed because they thought they knew better.  So be it.

For Barbat's thing you need the salmon-colored cuprous oxide not the black one (copper oxide) that is on wire that has been exposed to air. 

http://www.hpfriedrichs.com/rr-cu-diode.htm


ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #357 on: January 06, 2011, 07:46:52 PM »
SOoooo.,
Grumpy

How come you can't try to login as Grumpy?
If the Buzz got his wings back?This new name stuff stinks!
Maybe Stefan did the Chinese clean slate new year thingy?


Try it..............

Chet


the_big_m_in_ok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Hubbard coil
« Reply #359 on: January 08, 2011, 12:30:38 AM »
Hey Lee,

It looks to me like Hubbard was using a 8 pole motor then? Lots of torque would be perfect for an old boat. If Hubbard didn't patent it, there may be a patent that predated 1920 which would make it pretty fair game for commercial sales.
I haven't looked at the motor much, but the coil was probably wired in series and the power takeoff was from the center coil:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14070044/Free-Energy-Hubbard-Coil
(pg. 38 of this mss)

Some of the pictures in the book are better, but smaller, than what is usually found concerning Hubbard's work.  And, was it said elsewhere or not?  Kapanadze-replicated devices can fairly often have a coil arrangement that reminds me of Hubbard.
Quote
Without oil, we don't need Northup Grumman's bombs and planes and Grumpy/Sigma16 would have to find a job doing something productive that doesn't involve polluting the Earth and slaughtering the innocents. He could start by not polluting this forum with his disinformation.
Yeah, I see.  My idea is that they have the guns and law on their side.  Karen Silkwood was a whistleblower.

--Lee