Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[bboj]

To me it looks like the science is more like a religion itself!
One learns the "LAWS" and believes those blindly without even checking them out.

I agree. I should say SCIENTIFFIC METHOD.

[boguslaw]

Scientific method do not provide solution.... You have to think out of the box, questioning everything. Science is about constructing devices from what is known and tested, here you have to find something which everybody state can't work! Science is so superior in all statements, but never explained the most basic issues . What is gravity ? What is magnetism ? what is charge ? what is the reason of various laws ? Like lenz law for example.

Do something like that : Ask yourself what you need and then try to visualise what can help to realise that no matter if that break the law of physics.
You would eventually find that comprehension of law of physics are very bad indeed especially among scientists....

[boguslaw]

If you do not agree then follow the Richard Willis from magnacoaster career

[T-1000]

Yes, but with one difference - Science can prove (practice; "checked out"), and Religion can not (believe only).
Well, to get education (seems very few have it here) you need time and money, and to believe you need just opinions of others; that's why doing few (educated), voting hundreds (waiting a miracle).
Anyway, good progress in getting RF tapped through an oscillator.

Just for more than 100 years it is already making theory from theory without proving and declining experiment first... This is where it gone wrong.

[bboj]

Scientific method do not provide solution.... You have to think out of the box, questioning everything. Science is about constructing devices from what is known and tested, here you have to find something which everybody state can't work! Science is so superior in all statements, but never explained the most basic issues . What is gravity ? What is magnetism ? what is charge ? what is the reason of various laws ? Like lenz law for example.

Do something like that : Ask yourself what you need and then try to visualise what can help to realise that no matter if that break the law of physics.
You would eventually find that comprehension of law of physics are very bad indeed especially among scientists....

A scientific method does not prevent enyone from thinking out of the box - however it does include Theory, prediction and confirmation - testing. Science is also about improving and recording the existing scientific knowledge, laws etc so the others can replicate and build further on this new knowledge.

[T-1000]

Interesting stuff. As always, if the video included a schematic of the exact circuit being tested it would be easier for viewers to follow what is going on. From the looks of the video however, Lasersaber may possibly be on to something very interesting here. It is hard to assess what exactly is going on though without an exact schematic. LaserSaber has a comment that a schematic is coming though...

Laser Hacker! Free energy made easy.

[bboj]

I know my comments here may well be ignored by many, but here is my point of view on the matter of scientific investigation and science in general in regards to this type of research and experimentation (i.e., free energy and OU devices).

There is no problem with the scientific method whatsoever when investigating physically observable and readily repeatable phenomena. The scientific method outlines a systematic way to investigate and put to the test such phenomena, and the scientific method has been working very well in this regard over many years. One problem that arises is when people attempt to use the scientific method on phenomena that does not meet the basic criteria of being physically observable and readily repeatable. For example, the occasional sightings of ghosts or the like would be hard to use the scientific method on since this is not a readily observable and a readily repeatable phenomenon, unless of course some person is saying they can make ghosts manifest at will and which all can see, and which can be readily detected with physical instruments, or something along those lines.

This may be where some people get confused. Yes, there are many groups and organizations out there who refer to themselves as 'skeptics' or 'debunkers' and who claim to 'represent science' (whatever that means), and who often attempt to dismiss various claims simply because the phenomena reported can't be verified easily using the scientific method. However, since such phenomena such as ghosts and ESP and the like are (as often described) by their nature typically not reliably observable or easily repeatable phenomena (if we allow that such things may possibly exist), then the scientific method, as it is, is likely not really a suitable means to study such phenomena, especially in cases of random appearances of ghosts or occasional random occurrences of ESP. If the phenomena is not readily observable and repeatable on demand, then the scientific method as it exists now is not likely a practical way to study this sort of phenomena without at least some special approaches for such phenomena being developed first. A new approach would need to be developed to study such phenomena. Indeed some scientists involved in such study have been working on such new approaches for study in these areas, such as the ongoing research at PEAR, which is attempting to apply statistical analysis techniques to analyze such things as ESP, and try to validate based on probability of occurrence above chance. This is a whole new scientific investigative approach that is under development for investigating phenomena that does not meet the requirements of being readily observable and readily repeatable.

However, in the case of devices like Don Smith's devices or Thane Heins' devices, they are claiming that these devices generate real excess usable power, which is readily observable and which is supposed to be readily repeatable as well with their devices. There is therefore no reason that a scientific investigative approach can't be used to investigate these devices. Don Smith himself insisted that there was nothing mysterious about his devices, and that his devices just collected surrounding 'free electrons' to generate extra power. The bottom line is either his devices work as described or they do not. Straight forward experimentation with his devices should determine this, as long as the devices under test meet all of Don Smith's key requirements. I know, that is an important point though. Did Don Smith (and Thane Heins for that matter) reveal all key requirements to be able to make an exact replica of their devices? If not, then replication attempts may prove difficult, and results will be hard to draw definitive conclusions about, since it is unclear if we have all key information to make an exact replica to do our tests on. All we can do is try to replicate as close as we can manage based on the info we have and see if we can come up with any interesting results.

Regarding the scientific method, there is absolutely no criteria or requirement within it for scientists to reject new claims out of hand (within reason) without giving proper consideration and investigation to those claims, if someone is claiming that they or anyone can readily reproduce this new effect or phenomenon at will, if they follow the right procedure. In such a case, rejection without properly subjecting of the claim to further investigation and corroboration using the scientific method would actually be a violation of the scientific method. There is no doubt that this sort of thing does happen from time to time however. So what is the problem? The problem is not with the scientific method, as I outlined above, but the problem is with the proper application of the scientific method, and with people allowing their beliefs and expectations and presumptions to get in the way of the true scientific investigative process and method.

The key operational word here is belief. No one in this world is free of beliefs and assumptions and presumptions and this sort of thing. The question is whether any given individual can put aside their beliefs and assumptions and presumptions and properly use the scientific method, and also accept what the results of properly applying the scientific method are showing (whether negative or positive results). This is where things can and sometimes do go wrong. If a new claim goes against deeply ingrained pre-established notions and understanding or expectations, it can be very hard for many people to put aside their beliefs and assumptions, etc., and fairly look at and investigate the new claim. All too often the new claim which appears to be at odds with accepted theories and understanding will bring on a knee jerk reaction from many, from both scientists and the general public as well, including automatic dismissal and even furious and emotional attacks and ridicule and the like. Words like 'fraud' and 'kook' and 'incompetent', etc., may get thrown around, and evidence presented by the claimant may be widely ignored instead of undergoing further research by the scientific community. 'Cold Fusion' is a recent high profile example of this sort of thing. It is interesting to note that in recent years there has been a renewed interest by some in further investigation of cold fusion after its initial quick and emotional dismissal by many in the scientific community, and further research is continuing in this area.

People should keep in mind that Tesla and others like him were very much scientists, who spent many hours in their labs putting ideas and concepts to the test, and making observations and taking extensive notes on those observations and results, etc. In other words, they actively put the scientific method to use, and likely would not have made so many important discoveries and come up with so many useful inventions if they didn't take a sound scientific approach to their research.

Where people like Tesla shine IMO, is they are able to put beliefs and presumptions and expectations aside and do careful scientific experimentation, and they also have the ability to observe well and take note of even very subtle hints and clues that are appearing in their experimental results, and accept what the results of their experiments are indicating and move forward with these observations to new understandings. That is the true spirit of the scientific method, and likely many great scientists are those who have a special ability to utilize the scientific method to its full advantage by being able to put aside their presumptions and expectations and beliefs and really pick up on and take note of very subtle or unusual effects that may show up from time to time in their experiments, which many others might be too quick to dismiss out of hand as just measurement error or random artifacts, etc.

The ability to observe and make use of observations is very much under the control of our beliefs and expectations, etc. This applies no matter what the beliefs and assumptions are. Those who attack or dismiss things out of hand are in all probability operating mainly at the level of belief, and this applies to not only scientists but everyone. We also have many people who attack and dismiss science or the scientific method without any real understanding of what they are attacking and why. These people are also mainly operating strictly at the level of belief and their approach is no more constructive than those in the scientific community who might dismiss potentially valid new discoveries out of hand simply because the research does meet with their beliefs and assumptions and expectations.

The reality is, there are all too many people in this world who are operating mainly at the level of belief, and, despite anything they might claim to the contrary, are not really at all capable of or interested in searching for truth or new understandings, or able to accept evidence that might be right in front of their noses if that evidence is contrary to some deeply set beliefs that they hold. All too often what we see in this world are people in one belief camp attacking or arguing or putting down others in another belief camp, and the most notable observation in this regard is these people not only contribute very little if anything to new understanding, they often stand in the way of any such effort with their endless arguments and speculation and insults and attacks, etc. If a person is interested in new research, then get involved in a positive way. If all a person is doing is throwing opinions and speculation around and making insults and dismissive comments and such, it is clear such a person is not really interested in new research and new knowledge at all, but is more interested in promoting their own beliefs and trying to silence people with opposing beliefs. This applies to both sides of the fence. Those who spend a lot of time attacking science or the scientific method are just showing their ignorance and are contributing nothing to the cause of new research and new understanding. Such belief wars contribute nothing in the end, and in reality can only act as hindrances and obstacles to those who are truly trying to investigate and learn new things and discuss these matters with others of similar interest and inclination. The endless arguments and jabs and insults all amount to so much useless clutter and wasted energy. Just my opinion, of course. Now, back to experimenting...

well said. could not say it better

[promt]

Just for more than 100 years it is already making theory from theory without proving and declining experiment first... This is where it gone wrong.

100 years ago you would be riding a horse.
And because of Science you're able to do, say, tests we see now, not because of religion; the last one always was opposite to Science, until the finally Science will prove them wrong too.


Here's your answer - "A scientific method does not prevent anyone from thinking out of the box - however it does include Theory, prediction and confirmation - testing. Science is also about improving and recording the existing scientific knowledge, laws etc so the others can replicate and build further on this new knowledge".

[verpies]

I would setup the measurement like in the drawing.

The same setup could be used to measure the output power however points A and B should be exchanged. Agreed?

I would measure the RMS voltage across R1 at points (A) and (B) in volts then divide it by the resistance in Ohms to get the current through the primary, then multiply the current by the RMS voltage measured at points (A) and (C) to get the apparent power. Then there is the power factor which could only help.

That is valid only if the current and voltage waveforms are both sinusoidal.
I don't think they are in Mr. Clean's device.

[verpies]

Here is update on my current quest for Lenz less transformer.
I managed to reverse current draw when load is atached. So now it is reverse from conventional transformers behavior..
Here is the resonant circuit I tested:
The scope showing INPUT amps and volts:
The scope showing OUTPUT amps and volts:

You can calculate the rest..

I will gladly do the calculations if you post the scope data in a text form.

Counting pixels on fuzzy screenshot's is not accurate IMHO.
Also, every ADC introduces a quantization error and data generated by 2 ADCs contains 2 quantization errors that get multiplied during instantaneous power calculations!

The problem becomes bad enough when only 20% of your ADC's vertical resolution is used (due to inappropriate gain set in the scope's channel amplifier) - without aggravating it with the inferior pixel resolution of scopeshots.

[verpies]

Laser Sabre is no different to many other folks, he doesn't want to measure actual efficiency, which would be easy, he just wants to show things to hype people up.

Maybe he wants to, but is simply incapable of making power measurements with a scope.

I asked him to do an essential and simple power estimation here without a scope, using only luminosity and DC measurements.

If he does not perform it soon, then you might be correct.

[LaserSaber]

Originally Posted by Farmhand
Laser Sabre is no different to many other folks, he doesn't want to measure actual efficiency, which would be easy, he just wants to show things to hype people up.

Please watch this video to understand the way that I test actual efficiency while experimenting: Lumens test! Super Joule Ringer 2.0 smokes traditional inverter! - YouTube I know that this method is not enough to please everybody but it is plenty accurate enough for me and has served me will. I really do not understand how people think that I have achieved the efficiency levels I am at without taking careful power measurements.

Maybe he wants to, but is simply incapable of making power measurements with a scope.

I really see no reason to use a scope to measure power between a battery and a capacitor. Maybe to check for a voltage fluctuation on the cap?

I asked him to do an essential and simple power estimation here without a scope, using only luminosity and DC measurements.

If he does not perform it soon, then you might be correct.

On overunity.com you asked:

Also, how much DC power do you need to light that LED light bulb with the same brightness?

That is an interesting question. How much DC power does it take to light an AC LED bulb to the same brightness.

P.S.
It is important to use pure DC for this power measurement. With pure DC you can multiply Volts*Amps to calculate power credibly.
With non-DC power supply (e.g.: PDC or AC), the power calculation stops being credible unless other waveform factors are accounted for - but why complicate the matter.

Of coarse I completely agree.


I posted this at Laserhacker forum last night and it may help to explain what I find interesting in this circuit:


This circuit just keeps getting more interesting to me. Before going to bed I decided to go out to the shed and take a quick current reading. It's freezing cold here tonight! Anyway, my shed is unplugged from my house and I have the antenna line connected to my metal roof. It is completely dark so the solar panels should be creating no effects. The circuit is clicking along at a pretty low frequency but all the LEDs in the bulb are glowing very dimly. I have the circuit on the 50V cap connected to a nine volt battery. Between the cap and the battery I have my most sensitive 500ua current meter and the needle is resting on the zero mark. I need to get a more senstive digatal meter to see what is really happening here. I also tried it with a 16v 33uF cap and with that one I was able to see the needle bouncing just a little. Disconnected from the battery on that little 16v 33uF cap the circuit ran glowing the bulb dimly for well over 1 minute before I stopped it because I was getting to cold.

Whatever the case, the current draw is in the very low micro-amps. It's very hard to tell at this point because caps themselves have some amount of leakage . I have never been able to light one of these LED bulbs at these low current levels in the past. For me this is a new personal record. I am very happy with it. I am familiar with glowing an LED from a crystal radio type setup. I have done that before. To do it I had to run hundreds of feet of antenna up and onto the hill behind me. Even then I could only get a single green LED lit very very dimly and that was during stormy weather. It was so bad I never even made a video of it. So I speak from experience when I say that this is a very different effect. Beside I was never able to light one from the metal roofing of my shed. I could not even pull in a radio station on my crystal set using the metal roof. I am very close to putting this one in an enclosure and moving on to the bitoroid transformer with the same circuit.

I am not making any claims or trying to spread hype, but so far this circuit smashes all my previous efficiency records for run time on a capacitor. I am optimistically trying to get it running continually on a steady cap voltage. I even have crazy hopes of seeing it run on a climbing cap voltage and I am not talking about dielectric absorption. Right now I could easily show a climbing voltage with glowing LED for at least a few minutes before the dielectric absorption would begin to fade. This may have been what was happening with Mr.clean's setup. We may never know as he was not even able to reproduce the effect.

[RAMSET]

Devine intuition.......

@bboj
@prompt

What do space travel and Generating Electricity have in common ?

They both started their evolutions at the turn of the last century,
One of them tickles the soil on other planets.
One of them still boasts "state of the art" on the door at Niagra power................

They have "time" in common ,and little else. a More extreme
disparity would be hard to imagine.


Thx
Chet

[T-1000]

@Farmhand
Joul Ringer CrossOver circuit does not cost your salary to make. Why you did not assemble one and do measurements yourself?
Also it is Brovin Katcher in general where one wire from high voltage secondary coil comes into base of transistor just amplified with one more transistor here.

Also I did assemble it last night and had neaty results with small ferrite toroid (20T:650T windings) fully lighting 8W luminescent light lamp with one wire energy transfer between ground and circuit. It gone even to the level where inter winding sparking did occur on 20:650 step ratio and now I am rewinding secondary to have better isolation between layers.

In regards to Bittoroid and alternate magnetic flux path - it is way to go forward and I agree with someones idea in LS forum about merging it with Joul Ringer CrossOver circuit so it always would be in resonance.
There is something very neat with lowering input power levels while maxing output power levels. Even if you are not able to achieve COP>1 there is still very efficient circuit what can run on "dead" battery for long time.

[Beamgate]

Something to Vie for...

Free energy 2012 Kapanadze Aquarium free energy device running 2KW heater load - YouTube