Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[Solarlab]

Hi Tswift,
...
I need to structure my approach to this topic in a more systematic manner.
Regards
Dwane

WARNING - just more forum gibberish; contains no real "value added" information )

In reviewing many thousands of "posts, articles and publications" going back "tens of years" relating
to "free energy devices" there is virtually NO detailed "engineering analysis" nor "credible physics" to
be found on this subject. There are a few viable published "postulations" available but these fall short
as well.

Legitimate "appearing to be functioning demonstrations" are also very few; and they do not provide any
degree of verification or in-depth analysis. Although some have been made to work in the lab, all are
ridiculed as "fake" and challenged with absolute lame arguments and, for the most part, simple foolishness.

Mathematics, Physics and Engineering simply does not exist within the "free energy" realm except for a
few very rare exceptions. Without these; we all know this "science" with never go anywhere.

A simple observation - Have you ever seen a detailed Mathematical, MoM/FDTD/FEM "Electromagnetic
Analysis;" or proper functional description; be it graphic, chart or otherwise; of a Don Smith coil or Kapanadze
telescope coil? This primary requirement appears to be "non existent" at the moment; it's complex behavior
and characteristics are still a mystery! This is nothing more than a simple "coil of wire" using an air core!

Experimental developers and physicists are critical to wide spread exposure of "free energy" but to move
forward there must also be a viable process that includes decipherable reasoning, based on disciplined fact.

Fortunately our "tool boxes" are expanding significantly and at a "Moore's Law" rate.
Virtual prototyping CAE, CNC machines for precision coil winding, desktop 3D fabrication, high level
mathematics software, flow chart programming, high speed processing silicone, worldwide parts
acquisition, inter-continental multi-language communication, to name but a very few examples.

Unfortunately, we still need a properly functioning "human brain" and a great deal of "human effort" to
make it all happen. We shall see...

Trick or Treat?

[med.3012]

Unfortunately, we still need a properly functioning "human brain" and a great deal of "human effort" to
make it all happen. We shall see...

properly functioning "human brain" already existed for example Nikola Tesla so do we have free energy ? is he the only properly functioning "human brain" ? what happen to other free energy discoveries ?

Tesla didn't know about all these high technical tools that we have today, why he was so genius and very successful in his technical work ?

there's other important Priorities than clean world from wars and pollution etc .. few people control the "human effort" this is why it's still very difficult to make it public !

[Solarlab]

The Point =>

Referencing the book: RF Circuit Design by Chris Bowick, published 1982:

https://archive.org/details/RFCircuitDesign

Recalling a quote from page 13:

"It is often said in the engineering world that anyone can
design something and make it work once, but it takes
a good designer to develop a unit that can be produced
in quantity and still operate as it should in different
temperature environments."

Delete "temperature" in the above and you have a "more" general statement.

As is often [most always] seen in the "free energy" device arena;
- here is my youtube, and maybe a forum discussion of my apparatus,
now everyone {blindly?} go forth and replicate it [given little or no
technical data, except possibly the number of coil turns, FET type,
and a few lit light bulbs], thus {falsely?} proving the concept and theory.

It's a long journey between "fireworks" and "putting a person on the moon!"

The devil is in the [technical] details... a clear and deep understanding of the
complex problem, compiled from {millions?} of inter-related technical details - each
one being a single discovery!

Tesla - my view - great inventor (fully functional brain!) and experimental
physicist; but short on leaving any technical or mathematical detail. Time frame wise
that's understandable although Maxwell, Hertz and others had mathematically
developed theories prior to, and within, the same period.

Making "it" public - conceding that the "human effort" is controlled by a few;
with the availability of the internet and many other avenues of disclosure (media,
publications, contests, etc.); "one keypress" and it's out there, every where, literally
at the speed of light!

Thanks to Everyone for their [technical most of all] contributions...

FIN

[Dwane]

Laminations

Hello,
I have a question regarding grain oriented steel. Where it can favour flux efficiencies. When winding coils for cold energy, e.g. BEMF, to be used with grain oriented steel laminations, will the grain orientation affect the outputs that we might be looking for? I suppose I am concerned that there might be a negative affect.

Regards

Dwane

[Dwane]

Hi Tswift,
.....
I need to structure my approach to this topic in a more systematic manner.

Regards

Dwane

Actually, I was referring to cleaning up my bench and have separate ares for individual projects. Rather than hotch pot across the bench looking at crossed wires!

Regards

Dwane

[tswift]

The Point =>

Recalling a quote from page 13:

"It is often said in the engineering world that anyone can
design something and make it work once, but it takes
a good designer to develop a unit that can be produced
in quantity and still operate as it should in different
temperature environments."

You make a very good point, and I agree with you. This has been the nature of progress so far in this field: the occasional researcher here and there stumbles across something clearly anomalous, but either has trouble reproducing it themselves or other people can't make it work. Or for selfish reasons they won't share the details. Or the device works at some times and places but not others. What we very clearly DON'T have, is a reproducible design that works anywhere, all the time, for everyone, with clear and complete instructions on how to build it. If we can accomplish this, we will change the world and I think most people here know it. This is what I'm working toward.

I continue to work on the Don Smith style technology because I think it's the best bet to achieve this goal. Don's designs were in many cases stunningly simple and if we can figure out how to make them work, they are not expensive to build (compared to some other historical examples of probable overunity technologies). I know that Don was on to something, because I saw it work myself, if only for about a minute. But it's enough for me know that radiant energy is real, and does indeed lead to COP>1 gain, and can be produced with relatively simple apparatus under the right circumstances. I don't doubt I could repeat the same test I did before and it would give me the same results, but what is really needed is something that can run continuously like Don's designs.

[tswift]

I have a question regarding grain oriented steel. Where it can favour flux efficiencies. When winding coils for cold energy, e.g. BEMF, to be used with grain oriented steel laminations, will the grain orientation affect the outputs that we might be looking for? I suppose I am concerned that there might be a negative affect.

I don't think it will make any difference. Just like with Metglas, it could be useful in some designs because of its properties, but by itself it isn't going to either cause or hinder the effect we're looking for. The one time I saw the overunity gain manifest, it was in my PVM12 high voltage power supply, which has a ferrite core HV transformer. Many of Don's designs used an off-the-shelf inverter, which might have any of a number of different transformer cores depending on the brand and model. If you start off with pure enough cold electricity, it's going to produce an overunity gain regardless of the type of transformer you put it through, at least that's what my research so far points to. Of course, the only way to know for sure will be to actually TRY it and measure the results, which I intend to do as soon as possible....

[Dwane]

Laminations

Hi TSwift,

Thanks for the reply. It is going to be be quicker and cheaper for me to get some laminations and wind a few coils. No-one here stocks Metglass, so I would have to import one. The question begging is which one?

I picked up the Spirit of Salts trick for copper from a plumber friend some years back when I was involved with a restoration job. Cleans copper back to the "pinkish" look.

Regards

Dwane

[Dwane]

You make a very good point, and I agree with you. This has been the nature of progress so far in this field: the occasional researcher here and there stumbles across something clearly anomalous, but either has trouble reproducing it themselves or other people can't make it work. Or for selfish reasons they won't share the details. Or the device works at some times and places but not others. What we very clearly DON'T have, is a reproducible design that works anywhere, all the time, for everyone, with clear and complete instructions on how to build it. If we can accomplish this, we will change the world and I think most people here know it. This is what I'm working toward.

So valid. Personally, I think some of the issue is the irregularity of components used, availability of some components used in "older" claims and suspect results to verify the particular claims.

I suppose the simplest evidence of a working prototype we have available is that of John Bedini's SG. Many people have been able to understand and see what is going on. And, the design he finalised was nuts and bolts and easy to see what had to be done to replicate. Also, there was a large community of avid builders replicating and innovating the design. In itself a moderate success story. But, where is it now? A lot of lessons were offered and learned. However, I suspect that the reduced response to building this unit now is that the development has stopped. People do not know where next to go. For those, with large battery banks and off grid systems the SG works.

Miniaturising the SG concept to increase the power content to that of the output of say Don Smith, might be seen as an insurmountable challenge for many. It is also unknown territory and very difficult, without much sophisticated measuring equipment, to actually see what is going on: assuming that a working example is available! Components, at high voltages and possible high currents, become very expensive for experimenters' who might not have a very clear picture of where they are heading and likely to finish up.

Anyway, we persevere, that is the nature of us. We seek to understand so that we can control that which we can use, so all may be able to share the experience.

Regards

Dwane

[RAMSET]

sorry for the intrusion

I believe I had read here about some ground enhancement attempts

yesterday in Speaking with Member gotoluc he mentioned an experiment he was preparing for [Benitez] and the importance of ground.
he has acquired a ground tester for the Lab he volunteers at .

the method he is using requires charcoal... salt and water
along with a grounding rod.
once we get these grounds to the quality they should be ??

It is hoped a method to cheaply check this ground quality will be developed
and then shared at the different builders threads at all the forums

I had shared this info today with a fellow who experiments on Tariel kapanadze
thread at OU.com and he mentioned Tswift here and his big grounding project.
I asked Luc for a Video for reference [coming soon]

Thanks for all you do here.

respectfully
Chet K

[tswift]

Yes, I agree with everything you wrote. Meanwhile, here's the latest progress on the nuts-and-bolts of the project. The ground plate is installed now, here's the process I went through.

First I tried to solder the big braided cable to the copper loops of the radiator. This was unsuccessful and resulted in nothing but frustration. I have considerable experience with electrical soldering but a lot less with plumbing and using a propane torch. Maybe someone with more experience could have done this successfully, but I quickly realized that I wasn't going to get good results this way. Instead I used the aluminum flange of the radiator and fabricated a cable clamp to tie the ground braid to.



Next was the ground enhancement mix. I had a significant amount of chemicals left over from some years back when I dug a deep hole for a ground rod, so I just used all of what I had left. This is two 40-pound bags of pelletized gypsum and about 35-40 pounds of fine granulated sodium sulfate that was left in the bag.



Installed in the hole it all looked like this. First a few shovelfuls of the ground enhancement mix to kind of level the bottom, then the ground plate (conveniently my clamp arrangement was strong enough to use for lowering it), then the rest of the enhancement mix on top of and around before backfilling.



I wet all this down with a hose and put the (mostly clay) topsoil in the hole first, hoping the clay content will also help to retain moisture. Then another sprinkle with the hose. Then I started shoveling in the remaining material, trying to get mostly the finer stuff without any big rocks. Then another dousing with the hose. Then, once the ground plate was well covered and protected from damage, I used my compact tractor with front loader to scoop and dump the remaining material, pausing every few loads to wet it down. This is what it looks like now, I'll do a little finish leveling by hand but I want to leave it concave so it will trap water with every rain and stay moist underneath. You can see that not all of the excavated material packed back in the hole, so now it's looser with some porosity to it than it was originally. This should act kind of like a french drain and allow surface moisture to percolate down to the ground plate area, at least that's my hope.



Ok, so after going to all that work how did we do? I wanted to measure the resistance between the building ground rod and the new ground plate. I checked and there was a slight voltage difference between the two, no doubt due to electrochemical action. However, this means that a regular voltmeter resistance reading won't give a true answer. A better solution is just to hook up a battery between the two connections and simultaneously measure the voltage and current. Using a small gel cell, I measured 12.55V and .201A, for a calculated resistance of about 62 ohms. Considering that the building ground is just a standard 8 foot round rod of about 1/2" diameter, it seems logical to suppose that the majority of the resistance is happening on that end of the connection. If this is the case, then the true resistance to ground for my plate is perhaps 10-20 ohms? Without better measurements I'm just guessing, but it seems like a fairly low resistance considering the difficult soil conditions I have to work with here. So at first glance it seems like all this trouble (and some expense) was probably worth it. I now have a good quality, low resistance (and low impedance) RF ground for tying experiments to. Now I can get back to experimenting to see if I can get better results!

[RAMSET]

Just an observation

Tswift
I see that your images are not viewable unless signed in to the forum.[and apparently even when signed in ?? NYC area USA ..just tiny black boxes with an X]

I see some pics can be seen and some not ?

just an observation , not a critique .

there is plenty of interest !!

with gratitude and respect
Chet K

ps
there will be no more interruptions from me.

[tswift]

OK, thanks for letting me know! I thought I had found a third-party hosting service that would work for the pictures. I can post them through the forum software, but that only works for logged-in users as well as takes up some of the limited space allocation on the forum server.

Here are the six pictures from the last post.

[med.3012]

The Point =>

Referencing the book: RF Circuit Design by Chris Bowick, published 1982:

https://archive.org/details/RFCircuitDesign

Recalling a quote from page 13:

"It is often said in the engineering world that anyone can
design something and make it work once, but it takes
a good designer to develop a unit that can be produced
in quantity and still operate as it should in different
temperature environments."

Delete "temperature" in the above and you have a "more" general statement.

As is often [most always] seen in the "free energy" device arena;
- here is my youtube, and maybe a forum discussion of my apparatus,
now everyone {blindly?} go forth and replicate it [given little or no
technical data, except possibly the number of coil turns, FET type,
and a few lit light bulbs], thus {falsely?} proving the concept and theory.

It's a long journey between "fireworks" and "putting a person on the moon!"

The devil is in the [technical] details... a clear and deep understanding of the
complex problem, compiled from {millions?} of inter-related technical details - each
one being a single discovery!

Tesla - my view - great inventor (fully functional brain!) and experimental
physicist; but short on leaving any technical or mathematical detail. Time frame wise
that's understandable although Maxwell, Hertz and others had mathematically
developed theories prior to, and within, the same period.

Making "it" public - conceding that the "human effort" is controlled by a few;
with the availability of the internet and many other avenues of disclosure (media,
publications, contests, etc.); "one keypress" and it's out there, every where, literally
at the speed of light!

Thanks to Everyone for their [technical most of all] contributions...

FIN

i agree with you.

[Dwane]

Hi Tswift,
Great job! Yep, those old radiator's can be difficult to solder to.
I liked your analysis of the earth connection. Worth remembering.

On a different note. It occurs to me that Don's secret was about utilising Tesla's Aether theory. That is, extraction of the charge carriers in the Aether medium. If so, well then I might understand a bit better what he was up to an his use of resonance.

Tesla states " There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.” If this is true, would it challenge the notion that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Increase matter, then we increase energy! Energy within the "environment" would not be constant.
Regards

Dwane