A Valuable Lesson? Debunking a non-"free energy" device with engineering

[dR-Green]

Greetings all. I came across this video a couple of days ago, wherein a claim was made that a Joule thief type circuit was producing free energy. So an investigation was made in order to find out...

EEVblog #708 - Free Energy Overunity BULL****! - YouTube

Before the haters start hating without even watching it, it's not about being anti-free energy, it's about being pro-science and engineering. Ignore established facts at your own peril.

[j dove]

Greetings all. I came across this video a couple of days ago, wherein a claim was made that a Joule thief type circuit was producing free energy. So an investigation was made in order to find out...

EEVblog #708 - Free Energy Overunity BULL****! - YouTube

Before the haters start hating without even watching it, it's not about being anti-free energy, it's about being pro-science and engineering. Ignore established facts at your own peril.

Dr green

Please take a look at my friend Nelson Rocha and his work before you dismiss them all as BS.

What of the claims of Charles Proteus Steinmetz , Gabriel Kron, Eric Dollard? Are they also nuts or fruitcakes as claimed in your presented video? Anyone in science and engineering should know that not all is known. Gabriel Kron's work with the negative resistors and network anyalizer using Schrodinger's wave equations seems to suggest contrary to the videos claims. Mr Kron was a well know scientist of his time and expert in Math and electricity.
I would surly take his word to be worthy of consideration. Also the work C. P. Steinmetz would suggest also that there is more to be understood on this subject. And least we forget the work of Eric Dollard? Does he not suggest the very same thing. As he directly claims energy can be created and destroyed . If we look at each of them in the math they are all claiming the very same thing. So as to dismiss free energy and say that they are all crackpots and idiots seems to be that you are ignoring some very intelligent people with some valid proof. The established facts of science as you call them are only established until we find out something else. One need only look at the past to see the established facts then that were shown to be false. If they are false now they were false then . So we can see through time mankind is on a learning curve and you may very well discover something tomorrow that completely changes your outlook from today.

In short, you don't know everything and neither do I.

Jeff

[dR-Green]

Dr green

Please take a look at my friend Nelson Rocha and his work before you dismiss them all as BS.

What of the claims of Charles Proteus Steinmetz , Gabriel Kron, Eric Dollard? Are they also nuts or fruitcakes as claimed in your presented video? Anyone in science and engineering should know that not all is known. Gabriel Kron's work with the negative resistors and network anyalizer using Schrodinger's wave equations seems to suggest contrary to the videos claims. Mr Kron was a well know scientist of his time and expert in Math and electricity.
I would surly take his word to be worthy of consideration. Also the work C. P. Steinmetz would suggest also that there is more to be understood on this subject. And least we forget the work of Eric Dollard? Does he not suggest the very same thing. As he directly claims energy can be created and destroyed . If we look at each of them in the math they are all claiming the very same thing. So as to dismiss free energy and say that they are all crackpots and idiots seems to be that you are ignoring some very intelligent people with some valid proof. The established facts of science as you call them are only established until we find out something else. One need only look at the past to see the established facts then that were shown to be false. If they are false now they were false then . So we can see through time mankind is on a learning curve and you may very well discover something tomorrow that completely changes your outlook from today.

In short, you don't know everything and neither do I.

Jeff

Did you watch the video?

People are considered crackpots and idiots mainly because of all the things that are illustrated in the video. Due to a lack of basic understanding of, if not blank refusal to acknowledge, conventional theories and practices, they are unable to analyse, measure and identify basic effects, and instead jump to the conclusion that it's due to some cosmic quantum energy source. But since no measurements have been done and it's easily disproven through doing said measurements, then of course the whole thing gets dismissed as lunacy because it would seem that most of the people making the claims haven't got any idea what they're talking about. Hence as the title says, an important lesson? It is if any "free energy" device is supposed to be taken seriously. If everyone did the basic engineering then this guy in the video would have nothing to laugh about, and there would be less false claims to waste your time and effort.

[j dove]

Did you watch the video?

People are considered crackpots and idiots mainly because of all the things that are illustrated in the video. Due to a lack of basic understanding of, if not blank refusal to acknowledge, conventional theories and practices, they are unable to analyse, measure and identify basic effects, and instead jump to the conclusion that it's due to some cosmic quantum energy source. But since no measurements have been done and it's easily disproven through doing said measurements, then of course the whole thing gets dismissed as lunacy because it would seem that most of the people making the claims haven't got any idea what they're talking about. Hence as the title says, an important lesson? It is if any "free energy" device is supposed to be taken seriously. If everyone did the basic engineering then this guy in the video would have nothing to laugh about.

Did you read, Steinmetz, Kron, Dollard? Did you look at Nelson Rocha?

Maybe he should read Stiemetz , Kron, Dollard also before posting such a video. As he directly states that free energy is full of fruitcakes.
All is not as he claims.


Jeff

[dR-Green]

Did you read, Steinmetz, Kron, Dollard? Did you look at Nelson Rocha?

Maybe he should read Stiemetz , Kron, Dollard also before posting such a video. As he directly states that free energy is full of fruitcakes.
All is not as he claims.


Jeff

I suggest that you watch the video before judging it.

[j dove]

I suggest that you watch the video before judging it.

I did watch it and as I said he directly states free energy is BS. Sorry I don't agree with that statement. It is as he showed for that particular circuit but to lump all together everything involved in free energy and say it BS. Well that's not even being scientific as he states.

You can not dismiss the work of those that I stated above as BS, if you do then it is you that are not being scientific. Such statements were not made by them with no measurements and they did not come by it with little or no experience. As I said you need only look at there work, did you?

I do not believe it just because someone said so or because I want to believe. All of nature shows itself to the ones that look. Does not the scientific community look for just the same thing with nuclear fusion?
Your free to believe what ever you wish and is the same with all others , belief does not make it true but then unbelief doesn't make any less true. Nature is what it is no matter what it is that mankind has established as laws . The laws of nature will always prevail.

[dR-Green]

I did watch it and as I said he directly states free energy is BS. Sorry I don't agree with that statement. It is as he showed for that particular circuit but to lump all together everything involved in free energy and say it BS. Well that's not even being scientific as he states.

You can not dismiss the work of those that I stated above as BS, if you do then it is you that are not being scientific. Such statements were not made by them with no measurements and they did not come by it with little or no experience. As I said you need only look at there work, did you?

I do not believe it just because someone said so or because I want to believe. All of nature shows itself to the ones that look. Does not the scientific community look for just the same thing with nuclear fusion?
Your free to believe what ever you wish and is the same with all others , belief does not make it true but then unbelief doesn't make any less true. Nature is what it is no matter what it is that mankind has established as laws . The laws of nature will always prevail.

The point he's making is how people come to the conclusion that their device produces "free energy" through not understanding the basics, when in reality it's not, and all the energy can be accounted for through doing basic engineering. I.E. the circuit/video he's debunking was presented on youtube as "bending the laws of physics", when that has clearly been shown not to be the case with very little effort, and if the guy who made the video had done the measurements then he needn't have made such an error to begin with. No doubt there are still people who believe that the said circuit is in fact producing free energy because they had watched that false video or others like it. One's belief in something can blind them from the truth, not least when they actively reject all common knowledge on the subject. Of course people don't know everything, but what they do know, works. That's the whole point of engineering, that's why Steinmetz did his studies and wrote the books, not so it could be rejected by "free energy researchers" on the grounds that it's conventional theory therefore must be useless. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Aaron]

debunking video

j dove, I think you misunderstood the reason dR_green posted that video. He is showing that the debunking video is full of ignorance - not the other way around.

dR_green is one of the most prolific replicators of Eric Dollard's technology - so you and he appear to believe the same thing.

He isn't saying he agrees with the video, quite the opposite.

----------------------------------------------

As a side note, Energy always is and only is created and destroyed on the fly anytime a potential is reduced by a resistance. Energy is work, which means there is no such thing as energy, the thing is potential (polarized aether), which gets unpolarized by getting dissipated by resistances. So anytime work is demonstrated, that is the creation of energy, which is the action the potential experiences as it moves towards equilibrium. I'm not saying you disagree or agree with this, just wanted to comment on the energy creation/destruction or synthesis/desynthesis.

[mikrovolt]

Greetings all. I came across this video a couple of days ago, wherein a claim was made that a Joule thief type circuit was producing free energy. So an investigation was made in order to find out...

EEVblog #708 - Free Energy Overunity BULL****! - YouTube

Before the haters start hating without even watching it, it's not about being anti-free energy, it's about being pro-science and engineering. Ignore established facts at your own peril.

There is one thing that may not be obvious.
People send prototypes to Sydney for evaluation before gearing up
production in order to find quality issues and technical opinion.
Lately there has been a lot of pacific rim design headed to major instrumentation corporations.
So I do thank him for his past years of scrutiny on the instrumentation designers.

The documentation for the ( joule thief ? ) did have a few erroneous details.
Dave Jones is a man on a mission. He knows it is his job to beat up engineers over
claims and details and check perfomance.

I recall having to clean up his board for DIY frequency generator in 1995
because it had too much distortion at the top end. It was maxim's data sheet on the
max038 that helped me correct his layout. He did grind out a board for the hobby magazine.
and it was very congested. I give it a C- and it contributed negatively to
electronic hobby advancement but he had good attitude but the board size
and parts layout ? (sorry mate needs improvement)

http://alternatezone.com/electronics...s/hsfglc20.gif
I give this other guy a B-
https://www.radioelec.com/images/Ima...1371538733.jpg
give this guy a B+
Function generator with MAX038

There are newer and better function generator boards now.

ha ha he says those free energy circle jerkers.

[dR-Green]

j dove, I think you misunderstood the reason dR_green posted that video. He is showing that the debunking video is full of ignorance - not the other way around.

dR_green is one of the most prolific replicators of Eric Dollard's technology - so you and he appear to believe the same thing.

Thanks Aaron! This is a different video though. This one's an example of debunking done right - in an educational way through explaining and demonstrating the process both on paper and through measuring the joule thief type circuit to show exactly how through applying basic engineering it's not bending the laws of physics as the builder claimed, and that false conclusion could have been avoided.

To everyone else, the video Aaron is referring to is this one, which is completely based on ignorance. He's right in that it's just receiving various radio signals, but he somehow tries to use that fact to debunk Eric Dollard when it obviously has nothing to do with Eric beyond name-dropping.

13 year old Invents Free Energy Device for 14 bucks DEBUNKED!! - YouTube

[dR-Green]

There is one thing that may not be obvious.
People send prototypes to Sydney for evaluation before gearing up
production in order to find quality issues and technical opinion.
Lately there has been a lot of pacific rim design headed to major instrumentation corporations.
So I do thank him for his past years of scrutiny on the instrumentation designers.

The documentation for the ( joule thief ? ) did have a few erroneous details.
Dave Jones is a man on a mission. He knows it is his job to beat up engineers over
claims and details and check perfomance.

I recall having to clean up his board for DIY frequency generator in 1995
because it had too much distortion at the top end. It was maxim's data sheet on the
max038 that helped me correct his layout. He did grind out a board for the hobby magazine.
and it was very congested. I give it a C- and it contributed negatively to
electronic hobby advancement but he had good attitude but the board size
and parts layout ? (sorry mate needs improvement)

http://alternatezone.com/electronics...s/hsfglc20.gif
I give this other guy a B-
https://www.radioelec.com/images/Ima...1371538733.jpg
give this guy a B+
Function generator with MAX038

There are newer and better function generator boards now.

ha ha he says those free energy circle jerkers.

Very nice!

[med.3012]

hello everyone ,

i watched that video a long time ago but i think he have to deal with a pure electric phenomena not an electronic phenomena , electronic circuit is good to drive the circuit but over unity isn't involved in it .. for example konstantin meyl experimental kit where over unity is measured and proved , scalar waves is what we need .

[Cadman]

dR-Green,

Let's see him debunk this one

Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in | WIRED UK

Cadman

[dragon]

It seems, to me, there is a lot of confusion about unity and over unity. What is unity? If we have a 100 watt input with a 100 watt output is this unity? Is this considered 100 % efficient?

I have a difficult time making sense of this... I see this as a 100% loss. Your converting all the energy into another form loosing everything you've put into it.
Unity, in my mind, is the point where you are running a load while the input required is zero, you may still need a battery to maintain a dipole but you won't need the "energy" from the battery. Over Unity should theoretically drive a load while charging the source. I'm not sure I believe that these conditions can be met within a circuit. We can find ways to "recycle" some of the energy lost to offset the overall efficiency but never recover all the losses.

However, "Free energy" or the energy that can be harvested from natural sources can assist the circuit regardless of it's losses. Still this is not "unity" and certainly not "over unity".

Am I setting the standard to high to make claims of "unity" or "over unity" in some of my projects?

[bistander]

Efficiency

... If we have a 100 watt input with a 100 watt output is this unity? Is this considered 100 % efficient? ...

Yes. Because that is how "efficiency" is defined.

What you go on to talk about is something different and therefore should not be called efficiency in my opinion.

Regards,

bi

Electric Power Efficiency (·)