High Voltage from Thin Air?

[amigo]

I placed a document on Scribd that some may have interest or of value.

An Efficient Method for Driving LED Arrays from Spatial Energy Coherence Exciters

Thanks Doc.

[ashtweth]

Thanks Doc.

Thanks Doc!!!!!! Brilliant read

[Web000x]

Efficiency of LED lighting

To start this off, I am going to preface that I see something very significant going on with the SEC exciters. However, I'm not sure if I am convinced that the lighting of the LED's with the exciter is all that amazing, and this could very well be due to the fact that I do not have "top of the line" test equipment or just flat out have things twisted in my head.

Okay, when running my SEC 18 that I purchased from the doc or using one of the SEC schematics found on overunity.com (can't seem to locate the exact page that I found it on), I am drawing roughly 30 - 50 mA for normal operation @12v. When in resonance, my LED's light very brightly at lets say 40mA*12v= .48W.

This is when I began to become curious about "conventional" LED operation/current consumption. I took my 60 LED's(Vf = 1.7v) and hooked my variable transformer to a FWBR going to a capacitor bank for voltage regulation. I hooked up the DC power output to my LED's and began to turn up the voltage until I saw light the LED's begin to emit light. I had a current meter and a voltmeter hooked up to this setup so that I could calculate my power consumption. As soon as the LED's lit to the same apparent brightness, I took measurements and found VDC = 105V and I = 1mA(1.09mA).

Conventional operation = 105V*1mA = .105W

SEC Exciter operation = 12V*40mA = .48W

Any thoughts or comments on this "conventional" setup vs. Spatial Energy Coherence are more than welcome.



Dave

[Armagdn03]

"With output far exceeding the square of input"
Dr. Stiffler.

This is a very interesting statement at least to me....as I secretly believe Dr Stifflers technology is a great application of Eccentric Transformer Theory (not trying to plug myself here) "Square of input......" awesome.

Wish your working group had panned out Dr. Stiffler, however either way it is good to see that you have been refining both your definitions, explaining the proper range of applications and bettering your already deceptively simple devices.

[DrStiffler]

To start this off, I am going to preface that I see something very significant going on with the SEC exciters. However, I'm not sure if I am convinced that the lighting of the LED's with the exciter is all that amazing, and this could very well be due to the fact that I do not have "top of the line" test equipment or just flat out have things twisted in my head.

Okay, when running my SEC 18 that I purchased from the doc or using one of the SEC schematics found on overunity.com (can't seem to locate the exact page that I found it on), I am drawing roughly 30 - 50 mA for normal operation @12v. When in resonance, my LED's light very brightly at lets say 40mA*12v= .48W.

This is when I began to become curious about "conventional" LED operation/current consumption. I took my 60 LED's(Vf = 1.7v) and hooked my variable transformer to a FWBR going to a capacitor bank for voltage regulation. I hooked up the DC power output to my LED's and began to turn up the voltage until I saw light the LED's begin to emit light. I had a current meter and a voltmeter hooked up to this setup so that I could calculate my power consumption. As soon as the LED's lit to the same apparent brightness, I took measurements and found VDC = 105V and I = 1mA(1.09mA).

Conventional operation = 105V*1mA = .105W

SEC Exciter operation = 12V*40mA = .48W

Any thoughts or comments on this "conventional" setup vs. Spatial Energy Coherence are more than welcome.



Dave

@Web000x

Well I'm no longer going over old explanations, plenty of data out on the net, in video's and short simple papers to cover the understanding of gain (CEC).

When you are not properly set up, which most of the breadboard systems are not and full consideration is not given to the "system" as a whole, one would have to work with one of our lab units to just measure simple (objective) light levels to see much over (1.25->2.0). Here is why, you are not allowing the voltage and impedance to reach what is required and are not taking into consideration the heat in the transistor. Because of the small angle of LED radiation and the normal configurations being worked with by the public, it is no easy task to accurately measure the Lumen output of an array.

So you need to calculate heat from the transistor, heat in the LED's if you are not at full coherence (otherwise they are thermal neutral) and then you begin to cross the line in a way that the margin of error has diminished.

Please do not take this wrong, but some two and one half years ago researchers were driving (hundreds of LED's) with 10-20mA input, things have digressed it seems rather than advanced.

I have stated over and over again and will one more time so no one thinks I have forgot, 'Every 15-3, 15-20 and 18-x board IS capability of a CEC>1 well past the margin of error.

Keep up the work and some of the equipment one needs can be built from simple components (example calorimeter) and inexpensive photo cells or photo diode detectors available from the Shack for example, yet every one must understand these devices need to be calibrated, a curve produced on them, one can not assume (linear) operation and readings.

Don't loose interest, it is there.

[DrStiffler]

"With output far exceeding the square of input"
Dr. Stiffler.

This is a very interesting statement at least to me....as I secretly believe Dr Stifflers technology is a great application of Eccentric Transformer Theory (not trying to plug myself here) "Square of input......" awesome.

Wish your working group had panned out Dr. Stiffler, however either way it is good to see that you have been refining both your definitions, explaining the proper range of applications and bettering your already deceptively simple devices.

@Armagdn03
The group has reformed, although some behind the scenes setup is taking place and we need to talk about that in a different way, (do you have my public key)?

Yes, similar, the same, maybe, only implemented a different way than your approach. I know from our conversations you do not believe in SEC and that is fine, none of the PhD's in the group do ether, in fact each has his/her own idea, you are aware of Dr.K and his idea and he is back now, not sure about his posting in the group.

[Web000x]

@Web000x

Well I'm no longer going over old explanations, plenty of data out on the net, in video's and short simple papers to cover the understanding of gain (CEC).

When you are not properly set up, which most of the breadboard systems are not and full consideration is not given to the "system" as a whole, one would have to work with one of our lab units to just measure simple (objective) light levels to see much over (1.25->2.0). Here is why, you are not allowing the voltage and impedance to reach what is required and are not taking into consideration the heat in the transistor. Because of the small angle of LED radiation and the normal configurations being worked with by the public, it is no easy task to accurately measure the Lumen output of an array.

So you need to calculate heat from the transistor, heat in the LED's if you are not at full coherence (otherwise they are thermal neutral) and then you begin to cross the line in a way that the margin of error has diminished.

Please do not take this wrong, but some two and one half years ago researchers were driving (hundreds of LED's) with 10-20mA input, things have digressed it seems rather than advanced.

I have stated over and over again and will one more time so no one thinks I have forgot, 'Every 15-3, 15-20 and 18-x board IS capability of a CEC>1 well past the margin of error.

Keep up the work and some of the equipment one needs can be built from simple components (example calorimeter) and inexpensive photo cells or photo diode detectors available from the Shack for example, yet every one must understand these devices need to be calibrated, a curve produced on them, one can not assume (linear) operation and readings.

Don't loose interest, it is there.

Thanks Dr. Stiffler. I apologize for inquiring about something that has already been explained somewhere else on the net, but there is just SO MUCH info to sift through to find anything meaningful. Especially, when one does a simple experiment like I did and is looking for a quick answer.

Don't worry about me losing interest. I went to school for EE, and after seeing some of the effects from multiple circuits/setups from this forum and other sources, I am determined to "figure" it all out.

Thanks Doc


Dave

[Armagdn03]

Hello Dr. Stiffler,

I do not have the key anymore, I had a hard drive crash a bit ago and lost my saved web pages.

My email is Manriquea@uwstout.edu

or

Manriquea@my.uwstout.edu

Actually....Its not that I dont think SEC is correct...im just not there yet.

A couple things that I have been thinking about along these lines...

"it is difficult to deal with the concept of zero when zero changes" Em radiation oscillating about local "zero" constitutes a net energy of zero (if we add negative one and one together, we have zero) However we can deliberately change where zero lies, making nodes...once inactive, have a relative potential difference with the load, and a net energy with respect to the load above zero too.

Secondly, I see the SEC (probably much to simplistically) as an oscillator with timbre. Much more than ever seen before obviously. I read something the other day which may apply....and maybe this is a real stretch, but I have tried to build a device which specifically does this (am still in R&D and probably always will be)


The mechanism is this....Overtones can affect undertones. Undertones Cannot affect overtones, except with they are in harmony (more than one) There is a possible "one way" road here which could lead to gain. For example, Perhaps I have 3 transmitters, with frequencies A..B..C. Then we have a receiver which is tuned to neither A,B, or c...But rather an overtone "D" which is affected by the others. Say we power our load with the D harmonic only. Will the 3, towers none of which are tuned to D show an drop in energy retained within their resonant structure?


This is quite a different machine than SEC....or is it? One transmitter can take place of the three..if it is a wide band oscillator..The very high impedance characteristic between the plug and oscillator adds another layer of separation etc..


I guess what I am getting at here is....I believe you have seen something that SEC explains that conventional theory must not, or you would not waste your time. I dont disbelieve what you are sharing...rather just dont think I understand it yet...

[gmeast]

Overunity, Free Energy, COP>1, CEC>1, etc.

I placed a document on Scribd that some may have interest or of value.

An Efficient Method for Driving LED Arrays from Spatial Energy Coherence Exciters

@ Dr Stiffler,

I just downloaded the PDF from Scribd. In your summary you alluded to the single and very most important consideration in any quest for a device that is self-sustaining:

A technology might be able to be applied to only one task. This, in no way, invalidates a technology. If SEC technology ends up being efficiently applied to only illuminating the darkness, then one of the single most demanding appetites for energy has been satisfied.

Once this is achieved (or on its way), it will become much easier to secure resource and talent to develop the neccessary interface and scaling technologies that will allow SEC to migrate to meet other energy demands.

Well, there you go. Thanks for the doc, Doc,

Greg

Oh, BTW (... it's also not important to actually close the loop either ... that detail is only important to the skeptics).

[ABCStore]

Dr. Stiffler,

are you still answering e-mails? If yes, should encryption and/or signature still be used?

Thanks,
ABC

[ashtweth]

Hi Guys made contact with the Doc, he is just sorting through some issues but is doing okay and communicating please give him some time to answer

Ash

[DrStiffler]

Feedback Welcome

Random and Synchronized Coil Communications.

What might appear ideal may not be ideal. Consider two perfectly identical coils (all physical and electrical parameters) that are in the same physical space and share perfectly identical environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, external radiation etc.).

These two coils being perfectly identical will initially communicate and obtain so called resonance and synchronization, or do they? One very important thing left out of the simple overview of perfectly identical was Time. Do both coils enjoy or are they both immersed in the same instant of time? Absolutly not!

So we do not have a perfect set of coils enjoying the same conditions, they can not enjoy the same point in time, unless we disregard the speed of light and believe in instantaneous communications.

The point is, is it possible to take two coils under ideal conditions and allow them to oscillate once triggered by some external source and synchronize so that they will sustain each other? No! it can not be done, they do not enjoy the same position in time, therefor perfect synchronization is not possible, (there will be a phase difference) besides we would need to maintain some external stimulation to overcome the loss presented.

Notice I introduce "Loss". In my description of two perfect coils I did not say they did not enjoy loss.

Heat! Well another problem. When we suffer a loss we will generate a bit of Heat and it will not be in equilibrium with the environment and the energy will attempt to equalize with the surroundings. We will also see an imbalance in the heat differential between the two coils ad the actual flow of the Heat energy will cause changes in the localized environment that will cause an imbalance the two coils enjoyed under the so called perfectly matched environmental conditions.

Carrying this further the flow of energy will additionally upset the capacities of the coils as determined by the environmental contribution (humidity, ionic flow etc.).

So it would appear that two perfect coils are not so perfect after all. But!, why not two close to perfect coils that enjoy the environmental changes? We know that a a simple coils (without implied attached tuning capacity) will enjoy multiple resonant frequencies. Could this fact be used to maintain a better or possibly working communications between the coils, exclusive of the requirement of synchronization?

Sure it's possible, yet we still need something to offset the loss. If we depend on environmental (say cosmic) stimulation, could we obtain a high enough level to cause the oscillation current to be useful? Maybe if we could supplement the loss with a small amount of "Cohered Energy" it might be possible to obtain so very interest results. Would this be an "Open" or "Closed" System, how about both!.

[Allcanadian]

@Dr.Stiffler

Sure it's possible, yet we still need something to offset the loss. If we depend on environmental (say cosmic) stimulation, could we obtain a high enough level to cause the oscillation current to be useful? Maybe if we could supplement the loss with a small amount of "Cohered Energy" it might be possible to obtain so very interest results. Would this be an "Open" or "Closed" System, how about both!.

Cosmic Energy, Cohered Energy and External Energy? I sincerely hope you are not implying that there could be energy external to our circuits as that would invalidate all our calculations and equations based solely on closed systems, lol. As you can imagine this may cause many problems, we may actually have to start considering events or conditions in the ambient environment at large external to our circuits. I wonder how you would calculate energy cohered from random lightning strikes on a planetary scale or solar flares from our sun 91 million miles away?. It would seem that once one is prepared to admit that the universe external to our circuits actually exists and that it may produce effects relative to us that almost anything is possible. It gets much more interesting when we consider things in a relative sense whereby everything is relative to something else.
Regards
AC

[DrStiffler]

@Dr.Stiffler


Cosmic Energy, Cohered Energy and External Energy? I sincerely hope you are not implying that there could be energy external to our circuits as that would invalidate all our calculations and equations based solely on closed systems, lol. As you can imagine this may cause many problems, we may actually have to start considering events or conditions in the ambient environment at large external to our circuits. I wonder how you would calculate energy cohered from random lightning strikes on a planetary scale or solar flares from our sun 91 million miles away?. It would seem that once one is prepared to admit that the universe external to our circuits actually exists and that it may produce effects relative to us that almost anything is possible. It gets much more interesting when we consider things in a relative sense whereby everything is relative to something else.
Regards
AC

I said (stimulation) NOT (source). Or maybe the word (trigger) might be a more meaningful word for you. Once a (trigger) pulse that (stimulates) a system into a random communication and an Exciter is powered it will self sustain from "Cohered Energy". LOL!

*Also I hope you are not saying to totally attribute 'Spontaneous Oscillation' to internal cause? Also Yes I am saying 'Cohered Energy ' enters the circuit externally and does not originate within.

[Allcanadian]

@Dr.Stiffler

I said (stimulation) NOT (source). Or maybe the word (trigger) might be a more meaningful word for you. Once a (trigger) pulse that (stimulates) a system into a random communication and an Exciter is powered it will self sustain from "Cohered Energy". LOL!
*Also I hope you are not saying to totally attribute 'Spontaneous Oscillation' to internal cause? Also Yes I am saying 'Cohered Energy ' enters the circuit externally and does not originate within.

After reading my last post I can understand where you may have misunderstood my intent, I was being sarcastic in every sense of the word, which is by the way a bit of a Canadian trademark. I would agree with everything you have said, I find the notion that we cannot interact with nor extract energy we are litterally swimming in absurd. It is a little mind boggling when you think about it, I have to wonder at what point did everyone think it prudent to consider the infinite amount of energy external to our circuits as non-existent?. To make matters worse we know as fact that this energy does exist, we know where it comes from and we know that in order for this energy to have moved from one place to another that it must have occupied every space inbetween in some form thus it is everywhere. My first experience with this started many years ago when I found a crystal radio could power itself and a small load utilizing the "static" or white noise we hear "inbetween" the broadcast frequencies. I find it odd that there are literally no frequencies I know of that do not have these oscillations which represent energy in transition. I also found that a simple pulse motor could in fact be tuned to and recieve any number of radio station transmissions in a single instance when a headset was attached which is odd but still obvious. In another instance I used many parallel AV plugs with short leads to charge a capacitor from apparently nothing. Still there are people who say we cannot get something for nothing, I like to ask them a simple question---"can you tell me where this supposed nothing is?", at which point all I ever hear is silence.
Regards
AC