unimaginative textbook sycophants

[smw1998a]

A little old research

Hello all,
Here is an old paper I posted in the old SG forum a few years ago. It's predominantly SSG based but I feel, relevant, in some aspects, to this discussion. Particularly as Ossie,s modified school girl circuit is very much to the fore.

I hope you find it useful

ElectronFlow1.pdf

Regards Lee.

[witsend]

Hi Witsend,

UNPROVEN! Mr Faraday will be most upset. The degree of relevance is entirely proportionate to a willingness to explore, learn and understand.
Inductor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will say no more on the behavior of an inductor in a DC circuit.

You're systematically removing the sense of this further and further from the original reference. Let me remind you.

Hi Lee,

The argument as to which direction current 'flows' is moot. There are those even in mainstream, who say that it is determined entirely by voltage and those that say it 'maintains it's direction'. I'm happy to let the argument stand. I'm not sure that it's relevant.

I am NOT referencing inductors - the amount of energy stored on an inductor or even- whether or not the inductor takes over as an energy supply source. I am only referencing the fact that there are two mainstream schools of thought as to which 'direction' current flows from those collapsing fields. Some argue that it maintains it's direction because it 'hates' to change'. I believe that you yourself subscribe to this thinking. In point of fact this argument would diametrically oppose 'Mr Faraday's Inductive Laws'. Then there are those who argue that it reverses direction. Here the argument is that current would be determined by the justification of the induced voltage in the inductive components. Correspondingly this latter 'school of thought' has the added merit of not requiring a variation to those inductive laws. They would then remain within the predictions determined by Mr Faraday. So, with respect, I suggest that Mr Faraday's thinking is better described by the second school rather than your own.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, particularly, once measurement error has been discounted. Unfortunately, I seem to be at a loss because I not sure what circuit you are referring to anymore. Funny how that happens.

The circuit I refer to is a battery in series with an inductive load and a MOSFET. The FET is operated with a 555 switching circuit. The shunt is in series with the negative rail of the battery supply source. There are no other components in the circuit. The results refer.

Again, to the best of my understanding both circuits have independent power sources. 'Fag' the heat I'm sorry, I really don't understand the context of this expression. As a Welshman, it conjures up some very disturbing mental images which have nothing to do with the subject in hand! LOL...

I've asked about this and apparently the 'slang term' 'fag' has various connotations. In this context it's intended to suggest the word 'ignore'.

I have the impression that you think my motivation here is to debunk. This couldn't be further from the truth. What I try very hard to be is thorough and if having to get my head around 'conventional theory' to achieve my aim then so be it. I learned long ago that it's best to keep my feet on the ground.

I heartily approve.

I also would not consider this an argument more a discussion with plenty of disagreement and like all discussions, eventually leading to a consensus and better understanding.

One certainly hopes so. But I'm using the term argument in its broadest sense. Certainly not suggesting animosity or even aggression. Just simple argument as used in any debate. Frankly I enjoy nothing better than debate. But to make a debate interesting one first needs to find a point of contention. Then that contention can be argued. LOL

Regards, Witsend.

[Jbignes5]

How is this off topic.

Jbignes5 - You advise me or is it everyone? to study Tesla's theories. You then explain that there are no actual theories. Just experimental evidence pointing to the theory. You then explain the need for this theory and that you, yourself are attending to this. And then you conclude with the observation that the 'secret' to everything - or the holy grail - may be in the shape of a salt crystal. My personal belief is that the 'holy grail' may be in a monopole if such can ever be isolated. All of which is possibly interesting but I'm not sure that any of it is topical.

Actually the title of this thread is describing the exact actions you just did. What I did say is that Tesla was an observer of the real. I said to examine the reports he wrote and Learn what he can teach us. He hated theories but he liked figuring out problems. He was no Theorist he was a doer.
The need for a theory is much like your own need to do the same as in your thread.
I looked at the crystal and concluded that I could learn more about the fundamental structures of what made it by de-engineering the shape using a well know theory out there as well. Planks distance (at the quantum level). Since we all know that geometry of the base or building blocks must follow the larger geometry.
I am starting to think there are clues there not exact proof. My bad. After doing some more research I have looked for other crystals that might have a connection with the material composition and Pyrite looks like it will fit the bill. Pyrite after all is found in most deposits of iron. Hmmm funny isn't it. The funny thing is crystals don't grow from nothing they usually need a seed crystal to grow or else they deform massively. Crystals usually grow from the tip to the base from the solution they are set it.
We are in a mono pole atm. There can not be a negative charge because they would neutralize each other and become inert or fade away, causing a balance. There is one polarity and one only with gradients of charge or groupings of lots of charges around a higher potential charge. It I suspect is why we have circles or cycles after all. It is all based from being able to compare between two separated potentials that we get movement from these crystalline transmitters of the static potential.
And I am sorry to say I joined this Thread because of what it says. Try reading the title again and you can start to understand my confusion over your replies.
I meerly tried to help people to understand that Tesla did experiments and saw the results and reported it. There are no Theories or anything like that from him. He just told the story and tried to "Show" the proof. It is people like you that scoffed him and dismissed his discoveries without at least reading what he has said or reported. Or even Look at the 700 or so patents that he successfully had in the Patent Office. All those patents show his credibility as a doer and a credible source for information.
He didn't see it all and didn't have the technology we have today to look at the levels we can now. We do and yet we stumble around going in circles on forums like these trying to get people to educate themselves through experimentation and Theory formation to base our work on. You are arguing the semantics even when someone wants to explore in a different direction. People thinks that it has to be so complex that they loose sight of the real target and that finding the truth based off of the Real. And that means anything not man made. Nature would work no matter what, even if we were never here. It is hooked into that system (the universe) and works every second of the day without our help. We only need to open our minds and look and listen.

[witsend]

It is people like you that scoffed him and dismissed his discoveries without at least reading what he has said or reported. Or even Look at the 700 or so patents that he successfully had in the Patent Office. All those patents show his credibility as a doer and a credible source for information.

Dear Jbignes5

I have NEVER scoffed at Tesla. ON THE CONTRARY. I need to clarify this. I am in awe of all Tesla technologies as I am of Bedini, Murakami, Leedskalnin, Dr Stiffler, Lindemann, Dolard, and hundreds of others. I am not even in the same class. I am also in awe of people's understanding of 'thing's electrical' 'things magnetic' and 'things mechanical'. Your own included. I have my own really limited view point about 'things magnetic'. But I am constrained by an entire want of schooling and a rather limited intellect. My understanding is therefore also limited. I am doing my best to advance my understanding - is all. But my understanding of Tesla, which you are proposing - is, unfortunately, entirely prescribed. I cannot find his 'thinking' anywhere other than in his experiments. If someone could clarify his theses against each experiment - then I would be able to 'follow the logic'. I am simply not skilled, schooled or clever enough to work it out for myself. Thus far I have not found anyone who can explain this at a level that I can understand it. So for you to 'tell me' to study Tesla - does nothing to help my cause.

Regarding 'off topic' I don't actually think I have a right to determine this. It's Inquorate's thread. He suggests that there is a kind of pandering to mainstream or 'text book science' that is done at the expense of reasonable debate. There seems to be a marked bias to prefer 'mainstream's interpretation of science. Not a bad thing of itself. But when the evidence conflicts with mainstream predictions then what is one to do? And this promotion of mainstream logic is often promoted with a sense of smugness that is more appropriate to the excessively self-righteous - which makes it part and parcel of a belief structure rather than a science. Science is only ever established from experimental evidence.

My own experience of 'mainstream' is that I had experimental apparatus offered and available to a variety of academics for a period of 3 three years. To a man they refused to even attend a demonstration as there was a presumption of error - notwithstanding some serious accreditation from some really well accredited commerical laboratories. I found this offensive and definitely in line with Inquorate's findings - as they relate to comments on his thesis and his experiments.

I think I 'hit out' at you because you were proposing that Tesla's thinking - which I simply cannot get my mind around - is to be preferred. It may very well be the case. But I am comfortable with mainstream logic and feel that Inquorate's device refutes mainstream logic. I assumed that this was the subject under discussion. I apologise if I appeared to be dismissive. I WAS in fact being dismissive. I had no right to be so rude. Abject apologies Jbignes5. You must understand where I come in. I 'flounder' unless I can get to grips with an argument. Thus far I canot get to grips with Tesla's thinking. Nor for that matter with your own. I wish I could.

kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Ted Ewert]

I've been reading the exchange between Witsend and swm1998a with great interest, and some amusement. The amusement stems from my own research into this very subject, and finding both of your arguments valid even though they seem on the surface to be contradictory.
I did a fair amount of research into this phenomenon while trying to design a recovery circuit for my motor. It uses the basic SG pulse circuit with a recovery diode at the junction of the coil and the transistor.
I also wondered if the current could be reversed upon collapse of the pulse in order to recharge the supply cap. I found this was not possible as the current indeed wants to continue in the original direction.
Nevertheless, the less current I drew off the pulse, the more efficient the circuit became (less total current draw). I did this by allowing current to be drawn off the pulse only beyond a predetermined voltage. In the circuit below this threshold is determined by the base TVS doide (D3) of 68 volts. This always maintains some "back pressure" on the coil and raises the circuit efficiency dramatically.
I could only conclude by the evidence that the supply cap (C1) was somehow being charged by this "back pressure". This phenomenon would also apply to a battery, as Witsend claims.
I'm not sure at all why this occurs, but it does, and I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.



Cheers,

Ted

[Jbignes5]

No need to appologize.

Dear Jbignes5

I have NEVER scoffed at Tesla. ON THE CONTRARY. I need to clarify this. I am in awe of all Tesla technologies as I am of Bedini, Murakami, Leedskalnin, Dr Stiffler, Lindemann, Dolard, and hundreds of others. I am not even in the same class. I am also in awe of people's understanding of 'thing's electrical' 'things magnetic' and 'things mechanical'. Your own included. I have my own really limited view point about 'things magnetic'. But I am constrained by an entire want of schooling and a rather limited intellect. My understanding is therefore also limited. I am doing my best to advance my understanding - is all. But my understanding of Tesla, which you are proposing - is, unfortunately, entirely prescribed. I cannot find his 'thinking' anywhere other than in his experiments. If someone could clarify his theses against each experiment - then I would be able to 'follow the logic'. I am simply not skilled, schooled or clever enough to work it out for myself. Thus far I have not found anyone who can explain this at a level that I can understand it. So for you to 'tell me' to study Tesla - does nothing to help my cause.

Regarding 'off topic' I don't actually think I have a right to determine this. It's Inquorate's thread. He suggests that there is a kind of pandering to mainstream or 'text book science' that is done at the expense of reasonable debate. There seems to be a marked bias to prefer 'mainstream's interpretation of science. Not a bad thing of itself. But when the evidence conflicts with mainstream predictions then what is one to do? And this promotion of mainstream logic is often promoted with a sense of smugness that is more appropriate to the excessively self-righteous - which makes it part and parcel of a belief structure rather than a science. Science is only ever established from experimental evidence.

My own experience of 'mainstream' is that I had experimental apparatus offered and available to a variety of academics for a period of 3 three years. To a man they refused to even attend a demonstration as there was a presumption of error - notwithstanding some serious accreditation from some really well accredited commerical laboratories. I found this offensive and definitely in line with Inquorate's findings - as they relate to comments on his thesis and his experiments.

I think I 'hit out' at you because you were proposing that Tesla's thinking - which I simply cannot get my mind around - is to be preferred. It may very well be the case. But I am comfortable with mainstream logic and feel that Inquorate's device refutes mainstream logic. I assumed that this was the subject under discussion. I apologise if I appeared to be dismissive. I WAS in fact being dismissive. I had no right to be so rude. Abject apologies Jbignes5. You must understand where I come in. I 'flounder' unless I can get to grips with an argument. Thus far I canot get to grips with Tesla's thinking. Nor for that matter with your own. I wish I could.

kindest regards,
Rosemary

I have to admit that I was in your place. It doesn't take a genius to see the results of an experiment. You just have to be willing to think about why such a thing would work. Tesla made some suggestions that startled even the best of thinkers of the day and to have you confused is only proof of how buried his true words are. Buried meaning hidden.
As I have said from the beginning these were mere suggestions to help people to understand that Tesla was onto something. Something which ultimately died with him. But there are clues if one looks at the whole picture of Tesla's life and experiments. Each experiment incremented his understanding of the root of the flaws we have ignored from the beginning. As for Theories of his they were mere possible explanations of what he thought was causing it but then they thought all mass was solid on the smallest scales. For which we know they are not. A true radiative event is 3d in nature meaning that evenly spaced about the pom pom's shell on that 3d energy(charge) network the shell would be as even as possible with little lines extending our from the ends of lines of force in the same manner that controlled the first. When they are attracted to a higher potential they will entwine with each other and cause a bonding of that network connection. These connections can and will be broken when we change the potentials in the two connections that achieve a balance causing them to repel. But I digress this is on the smallest view point and really can be proven but by referencing something just above that view point. Hence my repeated references to what happen in nature.
Although my reports about this stuff are kinda off topic, what wasn't was your reaction that I generated from you. Which was kinda my point all along. I don't fault you for this reaction, it is after all what I wanted to show people that is happening from my reported revelations.
I guess I should apologize to you for putting you in that position and I do respect you even though you might not think so.
My reference to the crystals was only a way to understand how an object could conduct a potential and pass light and I think Crystal have been shown to do both and if these crystals were so small they would be pretty hard to see at all. So we have both connections, light entering and or bouncing between the faces of these crystals with the channel in between two or more strings and the pizzo (misspelled i am sure) effect of the crystals structure allowing for static charges interactions without discharging causing motion to matter that collects around the source charge from the charges potential.
I believe that matter condensing around this energy matrix actually changed it and gave properties to each element based off of the geometry of the energy matrix running through the matter as it is being pulled twords a higher potential.

[Jbignes5]

Let me give you an example.

Would you say that if one wanted to take a picture of something invisible that had a real force but we just couldn't see those objects that an impression in something pliable made hard would be accurate enough proof for you?

Here is a clue to the underlying energy matrix that is in water.

Snowflake and Snow Crystal Photographs

This I believe is a snap shot of the energy conduits that are formed around a base charge. What do you think about that?

In fact they did experiments with voltage and forming crystals. Take a look and you will start to see the connections I had made...

Designer Snowflakes - Part One

[Inquorate]

I've been reading the exchange between Witsend and swm1998a with great interest, and some amusement. The amusement stems from my own research into this very subject, and finding both of your arguments valid even though they seem on the surface to be contradictory.
I did a fair amount of research into this phenomenon while trying to design a recovery circuit for my motor. It uses the basic SG pulse circuit with a recovery diode at the junction of the coil and the transistor.
I also wondered if the current could be reversed upon collapse of the pulse in order to recharge the supply cap. I found this was not possible as the current indeed wants to continue in the original direction.
Nevertheless, the less current I drew off the pulse, the more efficient the circuit became (less total current draw). I did this by allowing current to be drawn off the pulse only beyond a predetermined voltage. In the circuit below this threshold is determined by the base TVS doide (D3) of 68 volts. This always maintains some "back pressure" on the coil and raises the circuit efficiency dramatically.
I could only conclude by the evidence that the supply cap (C1) was somehow being charged by this "back pressure". This phenomenon would also apply to a battery, as Witsend claims.
I'm not sure at all why this occurs, but it does, and I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.



Cheers,

Ted

@ ted, well said. I had noticed the spike disappear into the battery; with caps you can still see it on a 'scope.. Perhaps we could use zener diodes - the coil will reach any voltage it can to create a situation where current can flow again. You're right, we've been ignoring the gift horse, when we should be taking her out for a ride.

@ jbig and witsend - 'topic' is whatever it will be - left alone, I believe most intelligent people will self regulate. I am enjoying the discussion when I have time to drop in.. Might I say though, the adherents to textbook theory seem to propose others experiment, but themselves quote textbooks. Which is all well and good on paper, but if the experiment disagrees, it has to be the ultimate authority. Therefore, after a point discussion should lead to solution - how can we benchtest the principles espoused ? What will provide a proof?

[Ted Ewert]

@ ted, well said. I had noticed the spike disappear into the battery; with caps you can still see it on a 'scope.. Perhaps we could use zener diodes - the coil will reach any voltage it can to create a situation where current can flow again. You're right, we've been ignoring the gift horse, when we should be taking her out for a ride.

A TVS diode is nothing more than a power zener. I use them because they're robust and won't fry easily. You could certainly use one in a low power circuit all by itself. I stick the IGBT in there just for power management.
Coils are interesting critters. When the pulse collapses you have energy shooting out both ends; normal current out the bottom and something else out the top (sort of like a bad case of food poisoning).

Ted

[eternalightwithin]

[witsend]

I've been reading the exchange between Witsend and swm1998a with great interest, and some amusement. The amusement stems from my own research into this very subject, and finding both of your arguments valid even though they seem on the surface to be contradictory.
I did a fair amount of research into this phenomenon while trying to design a recovery circuit for my motor. It uses the basic SG pulse circuit with a recovery diode at the junction of the coil and the transistor.
I also wondered if the current could be reversed upon collapse of the pulse in order to recharge the supply cap. I found this was not possible as the current indeed wants to continue in the original direction.
Nevertheless, the less current I drew off the pulse, the more efficient the circuit became (less total current draw). I did this by allowing current to be drawn off the pulse only beyond a predetermined voltage. In the circuit below this threshold is determined by the base TVS doide (D3) of 68 volts. This always maintains some "back pressure" on the coil and raises the circuit efficiency dramatically.
I could only conclude by the evidence that the supply cap (C1) was somehow being charged by this "back pressure". This phenomenon would also apply to a battery, as Witsend claims.
I'm not sure at all why this occurs, but it does, and I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.



Cheers,

Ted

Hi Ted. I've been trying to understand this circuit of yours. I take it that the power is coming from a battery and that the cap is intended to be charged from the BEMF. I would argue that the returning energy through that flyback diode would route the energy back to the battery supply generating an anticlockwise current flow. This would bypass the cap. Is that possible? Certainly, very broadly, the circuit would then be roughly similar to our own and so would your results. If you could spare the time I'd be glad for clarification here.

So nice to see that so much is happening around the world to progress these applications. AND THAT THE RESULTS ARE SO POSITIVE.

[witsend]

A TVS diode is nothing more than a power zener. I use them because they're robust and won't fry easily. You could certainly use one in a low power circuit all by itself. I stick the IGBT in there just for power management.
Coils are interesting critters. When the pulse collapses you have energy shooting out both ends; normal current out the bottom and something else out the top (sort of like a bad case of food poisoning).

LOL I've been rolling.

[witsend]

Ok. Here's my interpretation in terms of Inductive Laws.

Assuming that potential difference is a measure of magnetic imbalance, and assuming that current flow is an electric discharge of that magnetic imbalance then

1 Current flow is first induced from the potential difference at the battery.

2 So. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field - answers the first transfer of energy through current flow.

3 Changing electric fields induce a magnetic field - answers the first transfer of potential difference across the inductor

4 Then the current flow from the battery is disabled via the switch.

Effectively the only source of potential difference in the circuit is now in the inductor. It has a closed circuit path via the internal body diode at the MOSFET.

5 The inductor discharges potential difference from some value, say 'x' to zero or ground.

This is seen as a voltage collapse that results in a discharge of energy equal to the energy that was first delivered by the battery. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. AND changing electric fields induce a magnetic field. Therefore the collapse of the voltage from 'x' to zero is a measure of changing magnetic fields.

6 This induces a changing electric field which, in turn, induces a current flow in antiphase to the first cycle.

7 But then that changing electric field, in turn, induces a changing magnetic field that takes the voltage from 'x' to '-x'.

8 This induces a second cycle of electric energy or current flow that maintains the directional flow in antiphase or anticlockwise relative to the battery supply.

9 Then the cycle repeats itself - like a mirror image of the first cycle. The discharge of energy resulting in that negative potential difference results in current flow that is anticlockwise

10 And having discharged its potential difference then the voltage recovers from '-x' to zero.

11 This induces a current flow that is 'clockwise' relative to the battery and the switch now also kicks in that there is a second cycle of energy delivered by the battery.

Effectively, losses excepted, the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is returned to the battery in a precise and equivalent quotient.

However. This equivalence is dependent on the rate of transfer - and that there is 'time' afforded to allow the discharge of stored energy from the inductor through both cycles. That is when the system becomes frequency dependent and that, in my experience, is where the 'art' comes into the tuning of the circuit.

In this particular circuit - as designed by Inquorate - the discharge of energy is alternatively between two batteries resulting in a steady increase in potential difference over both - as the one supplies the other and vice versa during each cycle. As battery 2 gets an increase in voltage it is able to discharge more energy into battery 1 and vice versa - in small and steady increments, thereby recharging both batteries.

[witsend]

What I'm trying to point to above is that standard Inductive Laws explains this potential and that is all that is ever needed to realise a gain. It's just that this also indicates that standard Inductive Laws also have that potential to conserve charge. It's just that this potential has been urgently denied by our physicists.

What is also intriguing is this. I've covered this point before. If E=mc^2 then mass has it's own energy quotient. Why therefore does mainstream ignore the mass of - and the potential energy in - inductive or resistive and inductive components. The energy transferred to such mass would be magnetic - and would only depend on the component's magnetic properties. But having been transferred then it is unarguable that those transferred energies would be usable in line with this equation. Surely?

It is my humble opinion that mainstream have gone to some extrardinary lengths to refute the very arguments related to the transfer of energy - that under all other conditions they also rely on. Seems they're determined to keep shooting into that poor abused foot.

[witsend]

Hello all,
Here is an old paper I posted in the old SG forum a few years ago. It's predominantly SSG based but I feel, relevant, in some aspects, to this discussion. Particularly as Ossie,s modified school girl circuit is very much to the fore.

I hope you find it useful

[ATTACH]5626[/ATTACH]

Regards Lee.

May I say that I'm blown away by the clarity of your argument here Lee. I am still working on this but, for the record, am again reminded how little I know compared to you guys. Really high standard. I think we're very fortunate to have this level of work available to us. Many thanks indeed.