unimaginative textbook sycophants

[Jbignes5]

This is difficult ...
But let me see, we'd better give a clear distinction between "charge" and "energy".

Charge = Q
Current = I
Voltage = V
Energy = E

Q = C * V

I cannot say anything regarding the energy for now, but, I am 100% sure that you can increase the charge in your system.
-I have explained this in this thread before, but for the record, just replace the 24V battery with a capacitor C1 charged with 24V and the 12V battery a capacitor C2 discharged, and both C1 and C2 have capacitance C.

Experiment one:
Discharge C1 through a Coil to C2, with a diode across them, without switching. You would end up having 12V on each capacitor.

Experiment two:
Discharge C1 through a Coil to C2, with a diode across them with switching.
You will end up having more than 12V on each capacitor depending on the switching frequency and the inductance of the coil. e. g. 16V

So it is evident that in experiment two we have increased the total charge in the system, not? So what did we learn in physics school? Conservation of Charge? Laws?

This shows that the inductor is adding something from somewhere to the circuit and it is not simply storing "energy" or "charge" as the physics instructor would say.

Regards
Elias

Excellent question. One would have to relate back to the radiating wires. Follow the wire as it goes into a coil. The first turn would be a circle All pressing inward with it's radiating events all along the wire. This pressing causes the threads to point inwards from all around. Since the voltage is lining up the vehicles in straight lines into the center it has to have an entrance and exit. Remember that potentials flow from lowest to highest or from south to north. As the connections grow this makes a virtual conduit in the center of a closely spaced or compressed bunching of these lines of force or threads. As you add more cycles or circles and continue not only do the wires have a static voltage but an inductance as well between the circles stepping up the voltage from previous circles through that induction. Tesla figured out that when you use voltages and focus them on smaller areas they tend to amplify the effect. Much like I have said in my writings here. Surface area has a lot to do with statics and not current. Although the ability of the conductor to carry the real charges is very real and is what causes the transformation of the charges into another type of radiating event as they get thrown off or radiated back to the environment. Go beyond the capability of that conductors surface area to pass the incoming current and it will explode back out to the environment using the same vehicle causing vortex like spiraling. This spiraling causes charges to hit one another or as close as a hit could get and deflect at odd angles from the collision. This event is actually the corona effect one can see in all the corona pictures on this forum. This action is also very cyclic in nature. Meaning when it gets far enough away it get attracted back into the cycle.
Tesla knew that if he was to make this work he needed to provide a voltage potential to attract the real charges (current or flow of those charges) so he devised such an experiment. HV souce pulsed one way to provide a pulsing potential and then let it relax and draw the current into his load. He used air cored transformers of special design to provide the higher voltages needed to attract massive currents as the source then had two antennas one in and one out. One was made with more surface area then the other but the mass or weight of them were matched. This provided the imbalance that he needed or the flow. Then in order to use that flow or charge in the system on one side only did he inserted the load between the hv source and on of these antennas. Of course the load had to be capable of both high voltage and high current just not at the same time since voltage leads current or comes before.
Let me provide you with a picture of such a device:
.................................N
......o-------o-------O.Arc.O----o (special transformer) o----o(load)o-(ant)
HV ..........(Cap)...........S..........P.(.......... ...............).S
......o-------o-------------------o (same transformer.) o-------------(ant)

The left hand side of this circuit is HV through a transformer as well but I believe that was just a normal transformer to provide the necessary HV for the arc space. The arc space was magnetically quenched to provide faster arcing.
The special transformer was immersed in oil for the extreme experiments he used and is not necessary for lower voltages but I have no clue to the relationship of what voltages needed to be present. He used the oil as a better insulator then they provided at that time. the coils were wound on a wooden dowel and the primary was wound first then the secondary was wound after on top of the primary. Check figure 3 in this link "Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency" by Nikola Tesla ...
There is specific details about the transformer that need to be adhered to in order for this system to be externally quiet electronically. Shielding being one of those requirements. Also I think this is where he got the idea for Coax cabling to direct the radiating event to the external parts of the whole device but his version seems to have the shielding not connected at all to anything but is purely to conduct the radiating event from the wires along a certain path. Where that path ended up is somewhat buried in his descriptions. Maybe someone will catch where that was I have missed that part obviously.

[smw1998a]

Hi Lee. I have often read this and variations where you say that 'charged inductors hate this' ... open circuit condition? May I ask where the following explanation is at variance with mainstream.

Nothing I have described so far is against mainstream. Although I may not have done the bast job explaining my point.

Disconnect the battery and then the only potential difference on the circuit is established across the inductor. The field - measured as voltage - is also a measure of the magnetic fields previously induced by current flow in terms of inductive laws. Also in terms of inductive laws therefore, this transferred potential difference is now a new energy supply source. It seeks to discharge that potential difference by establishing an alternative path through the circuit. If a path is available or if a 'closed circuit condition' is made available through a diode or some such circuit component then it will manage that discharge.

Agreed, although I wouldn't explain it quite that way.

This will be in antiphase to the applied current that first charged it. Therefore the discharge would be routed through the battery in a reverse polarity, thereby recharging it.

This is not the case. An inductor will always oppose any sudden change in current flow. If you short a battery across an inductor, current will rise in proportion to the inductance of the coil until the current is limited, only by the DC resistance of the winding, the the coil is said to be fully saturated. When current is suddenly removed from a coil the collapsing field inverts the potential only, in an attempt to keep the current flowing in the same direction through the winding, effectively, resisting the sudden change in current flow through the winding.

If you study the change in the waveform it seems to marry with the evidence. And it does not need to then accommodate that requirement to force current to flow in a direction that conflicts with the evident voltage. In my humble opinion this is more consistent with inductive laws than the arbitrary requirement to insist that current still 'flows' in the same direction.

If you consider a freewheeling diode in a basic transistor driven relay circuit. The top of the relays coil is connected to a 12v DC supply and the bottom of the coil is connected to the collector of a NPN transistor the emitter of which is grounded. There is a diode attached, anode to the collector of the transistor and cathode connected to the top of the coil. When the transistor conducts the coil is energized. The potential at the top of the coil is greater than the potential at the collector of the transistor. Current(I), therefore, flows from the top of the coil to the collector of the transistor. Once the transistor is switched off, the field around the coil collapses. The induced potential only is anti-phase so now the top of the coil is less positive then the other end (collector of the transistor which is off). It is also true that the anode of the diode is now more positive than the cathode so current flows from the collector side of the coil across the forward biased diode and returns to the top of the coil, which is consistent with inductive law. And by that definition, when I said current flows through the coil in the same direction, although technically not accurate, this is what the potentials dictate. Now if you were to add a 12v battery with its negative terminal connected to the top of the same coil and the positive terminal connected to the cathode of the free wheeling diode, when the relay is switched off and the field collapses the potential of the collapse will rise above the potential of the added battery before current will flow, charging the battery from the collapsing field. Before a battery will charge there has to be a potential supplied greater than the potential of the battery itself in order for current to flow charging the battery.

That voltage spike is only able to discharge when there is a reverse path opened for it's flow. Else we would see a spark discharge of that energy.

Yes and no, the potential of the collapsing field will rise regardless and it will continue to rise until the potential breaks through resulting in arcs, insulation breakdown or component failure. Or, the stored energy is spent in the form of a instantaneous rise in voltage otherwise known as a transient spike.

Regards Lee..

[smw1998a]

Ok you do know something about Tesla then. He concidered the hv as a waste because that is what he believed he had to pay to attract the real charges twords the hv source. Every attraction has to be payed for. Either by it's own potential source (particle) or the hv source that you have to provide to attract the energy. I am starting to understand the mechanics behind his method. Thats why voltage leads current.

Hi Jbignes5,
I think you have the cart before the horse there. I would suggest you study Tesla's motives more objectively. By all means build the circuit you show but everything Tesla did he did small pieces at a time, he set out his objective, the wireless transmission of energy and considered the obstacles. He listed them and tackled them one by one, it took him the best part of a decade. I'm uncomfortably out of my depth here so to debate the finer observational theory regarding Tesla's true genius, when it has been so diluted and poluted by the swathe of individuals that claim to understand him, even though many of their conclusions contradict each other, and even Tesla at times, but still manage to sell books, astounds me. So you will have to forgive me if I choose to stay on the side lines for such debates. If i can replicate it, I can learn to understand it, if it can only be realized in the minds eye, then I will stick to building and studying things I can see and touch.

Best regards Lee.

[witsend]

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.

Here's the thing. Put that circuit into a black box. Outside the box we have two flat batteries. They have been standing and their voltage is effectively such that they can no longer operate efficiently. The black box kicks in. Both batteries get systematically - albeit partially - recharged. How does this happen? Where has the extra energy come from? Just that. As Elias has argued - there seems, at it's least, to be some breach in the conservation of charge.

Otherwise I think that a technical discussion as to what may or may not be happening on the circuit is not strictly to the point. We have an apparent breach of a very respectable Law in physics. And it points to the need for an additional energy supply source. Where do you suppose this comes from? Or are you arguing that there's no actual increase in charge? In which case we must throw our measuring equipment away. They're meaningless.

[witsend]

Hi Jbignes5,
I think you have the cart before the horse there. I would suggest you study Tesla's motives more objectively. By all means build the circuit you show but everything Tesla did he did small pieces at a time, he set out his objective, the wireless transmission of energy and considered the obstacles. He listed them and tackled them one by one, it took him the best part of a decade. I'm uncomfortably out of my depth here so to debate the finer observational theory regarding Tesla's true genius, when it has been so diluted and poluted by the swathe of individuals that claim to understand him, even though many of their conclusions contradict each other, and even Tesla at times, but still manage to sell books, astounds me. So you will have to forgive me if I choose to stay on the side lines for such debates. If i can replicate it, I can learn to understand it, if it can only be realized in the minds eye, then I will stick to building and studying things I can see and touch.

Best regards Lee.

May I second this. I know nothing about Tesla's theories. I only understand that we have him to thank for our ac current supplies. But I am having endless difficulties getting my mind around these insights of Jbignes5. And it's not from want of trying. You're clearly way more intuitive than I can manage.

[sucahyo]

In this plot you can see the usual increase in load performance after each 12 hour charge cycle, small, but significant for a 5Ah SLA.

Thanks for the answer . I think limitting your input to prevent saturation is the key for you efficiency .

The increase of load performance is the sign of purer radiant . Although I notice mixed current charge battery a lot faster.


About spike, no one want to catch the spike bounce too? positive spike naturally invite negative spike isn't it, unless the load dampen the spike considerably.


About Tesla, I have different opinion from Jbignes5. I think Tesla work with sudden current interruption. Where higher potential, higher current or more suddenness increase the effect. Although just like chemical reaction, I think there is minimum threshold for voltage.

[smw1998a]

This is difficult ...
But let me see, we'd better give a clear distinction between "charge" and "energy".

Charge = Q
Current = I
Voltage = V
Energy = E

Q = C * V

I cannot say anything regarding the energy for now, but, I am 100% sure that you can increase the charge in your system.
-I have explained this in this thread before, but for the record, just replace the 24V battery with a capacitor C1 charged with 24V and the 12V battery a capacitor C2 discharged, and both C1 and C2 have capacitance C.

Experiment one:
Discharge C1 through a Coil to C2, with a diode across them, without switching. You would end up having 12V on each capacitor.

Experiment two:
Discharge C1 through a Coil to C2, with a diode across them with switching.
You will end up having more than 12V on each capacitor depending on the switching frequency and the inductance of the coil. e. g. 16V

So it is evident that in experiment two we have increased the total charge in the system, not? So what did we learn in physics school? Conservation of Charge? Laws?

This shows that the inductor is adding something from somewhere to the circuit and it is not simply storing "energy" or "charge" as the physics instructor would say.

Regards
Elias

Hello Elias,
You have a very valid point from the result of experiment two but the c1 capacitor would have to be switched before the voltage of c2 equalized or the inductor would not experience the rapid change in current we have been discussing, which would result in both capacitors equalizing at a higher potential than that attained in experiment one. experiment one doesn't allow the collapsing field of the inductor to play a part because there is no sudden disruption of current. But this alone does not prove that the inductor is drawing energy from anywhere other than the capacitor C1. Again, this effect relies heavily on the properties of the electrolytic capacitor and this demonstration doesn't work any where near as well with anything other than electrolytic capacitors. The obvious solution would be to only use electrolytic capacitors but then the experimenter would have to concede that the demonstration is only effective when electrolytic capacitors are employed. Continuing, convinced that there is extra energy due to the inclusion of electrolytic capacitors in this circuit, what could the experimenter do to prove that there is, in fact, extra energy made available in this circuit? And, if it were that simple, we wouldn't be spending all our time searching for COP >1, would we? Ad infinitum.

Regards Lee..

[smw1998a]

Hi Witsnd,

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.

Yes current flow is dictated by the potentials, I'm not suggesting anything different. I don't consider this point either moot or irrelevant. If we don't have a clear grasp of the potentials around a circuit and the effects of certain components, namely inductors, in this case, have on those potentials, how can the circuit be analysed and understood in the most basic of terms.

Here's the thing. Put that circuit into a black box. Outside the box we have two flat batteries. They have been standing and their voltage is effectively such that they can no longer operate efficiently. The black box kicks in. Both batteries get systematically - albeit partially - recharged. How does this happen? Where has the extra energy come from?

In both iquorates and groundloops original circuits there is a voltage source outside that black box, 24v and 15v respectively. I have just returned to the thread to understand your statement, sadly non of groundloops circuits, photos or data are available so I can't clarify your reference to no independant power source. I hope that this situation has a less sinister reason than that what could be considered.

Regards Lee..

[Jbignes5]

May I second this. I know nothing about Tesla's theories. I only understand that we have him to thank for our ac current supplies. But I am having endless difficulties getting my mind around these insights of Jbignes5. And it's not from want of trying. You're clearly way more intuitive than I can manage.

Well lets think about this then. The guy who was smart enough to actually design and implement a whole new system (AC) in his time actually isn't important enough for you to learn about? This man was no theorist and to tell you the truth his OBSERVATIONS of his experiments and the reports he wrote after those experiments are very very startling. I believe and many many other also believe that if you wanted to learn the truth about energy then why not go to a guy that eventually mastered that energy.
Yes he was a little out there and yes he is hard to follow because he also was well read on all the current dogma at that time and figured out that something didn't add up. That's what led him to his discoveries and thats what led him to believe that everything we thought we knew over a hundred years ago was completely in error.
I can sit here and try to explain his methods but wouldn't it be better to learn from the one who tried to rewrite these "laws" you speak of to bring them back to the natural methods employed by nature itself.
Everyone is looking for the holy grail of energy but yet the man who actually implemented it was squashed by and this isn't an attack on anyone in particular, by people who refuse to observe because it doesn't make sense to them.
If you want the holy grail then read everything about Tesla. Read his words and understand who he was. He was after all a mechanic. A working man who discovered "The" secret.
I keep hearing about his wireless experiments and to tell you the truth the secret is not that. Although it did show him that he could attract "current" in a one wire method to which most of you would call impossible. But yet he did it. One needs to look at the whole events from the discovery of the "radiant" event to the end to figure out that his discovery evolved into a method that could divert the normal energy that is flowing constantly around us in to a channel and drive another isolated and open circuit to have current flow.
What Tesla hated so much was that the pencil pushers denied his methods because they could make nothing on his methods. This was not because it didn't work but only from the fact that it was too simple and that it was free for the taking. Now we have the other end, the experimenters, wanting to find this holy grail even though it is right in front of their faces in plain sight for all to read but still ignoring the fact that what they are trying to see is quite invisible and that Tesla actually deduced from watching his experiments in the extreme to see the less extreme.
What I have been trying to do is form a Theory from the observation that Mr. Tesla had. Although this is exactly what he hated I think it is necessary ground work for a more complete understanding of energy and what attracts that energy and even where that energy enters the system one is using.
I am trying to look at the more natural ways of this energy and how nature (the environment) utilizes that energy to grow and cycle. You can sit there and devise method after method but if you are trying to interact with external energy from your environment then one needs an in and an out. Systems designed by All the greats after Tesla never thought about supplying an inlet and outlet or the connection to the external environment, That is why they see very little input from that environment. That would be like building the Niagra falls power plant and not including the mechanism to run the generators. It is the very same process in his design of the power plant that we must use for our own systems to extract or attract external input into that system. Plain and simple if you don't make the connection to the flow of energy around us you will never get the results you are looking for.
Take for instance Bedini ssg methods. They draw some energy from the environment using the plates in the batteries as both the initiator and the reciever of ambient energy around that battery. That's quite ingenious but that is also very very limited in it's capacity to channel those energies and very subjective to errors of theories designed to explain the real events happening in that method.
So this is where I am. Looking back at the natural processes for clues as to how it ALL works. There must be one very simple answer of what and how it runs it all. Once you have that you then can understand how to enact a system or method to take advantage of the limitless supply of energy available for us to cycle into our systems.
Radiative or Radiant energy is a natural process. It governs all of energies interactions, weather it is attraction or otherwise it must make sense on the most fundamental level because much like matter holding itself together or the so called "Electron" spinning forever there must a clear and simple answer.

I am starting to think this is related to sodium chloride. Or sodium Chloride is very related to the subject of transmitters on the smallest level. I have always thought it was crystaline in nature and this might prove it. We all know that Macro salt is very very sensitive to static charges. In my investigation into the shape of these conductors of static charge I have stumbled on yet another clue. Look at microscopic pictures of salt crystals. They are pyramidal in shape and I think this is the Very clue we need. it seems that whatever formed the structure of the salt crystals is what is responsible for the appearance of these crystals. Maybe we can infer the basic shape of the most fundamental object in the universe from the much larger structure of salt. It fits most of what I have been saying. It must be a mechanism derived from what formed this salt. Remember if planks distance is the golden rule at these views of masses then they must mirror the basic structure just be inferring the angles using planks distance as the angular constants.
I think our natural world is fractal based geometry at it's most fundamental level. With salt crystals mirroring the exact fundamental reactions to static charges.

Here is validation of my Salt theory. Salt crystals reveal surprise stretchiness - tech - 25 June 2009 - New Scientist

You can watch the video but read down to the third paragraph. It describes what I assume is the actual process we are searching for.....

Edit: Removed Molocules in motion video because it was not an actual video of reality.

[witsend]

Way 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.

[witsend]

Hi Witsnd,
Yes current flow is dictated by the potentials, I'm not suggesting anything different. I don't consider this point either moot or irrelevant.

'Moot' as it's unproven. 'Irrelevant' only to this argument.

If we don't have a clear grasp of the potentials around a circuit and the effects of certain components, namely inductors, in this case, have on those potentials, how can the circuit be analysed and understood in the most basic of terms.

I have never argued this. In fact I agree. Measurements tell us everything.

In both iquorates and groundloops original circuits there is a voltage source outside that black box, 24v and 15v respectively. I have just returned to the thread to understand your statement, sadly none of groundloops circuits, photos or data are available so I can't clarify your reference to no independant power source. I hope that this situation has a less sinister reason than that what could be considered.
Regards Lee..

'sinister'? That's a strange choice of words? Do you suspect a 'hidden' energy supply source?

Lee. I'm going to try this one. Experimentally I only know my own circuit. There is clear evidence of energy being delivered by the battery - shown by voltage across the shunt. Then there is clear evidence of energy delivered by the resistor. Again voltage evidence is across the shunt. Both work in antiphase to each other. The first cycle results in a discharge to the supply. The second cycle results in a recharge to the supply. Both charge and discharge values are measurable across the supply. And the two values from both cycles are nearly equal - alternately showing either more or less from either the source or the load. The returning energy, however, appears to dominate that measured result indicating that, with fine tuning, the result can persist. What I mean here is that because the experimental results persist - over time, then it cannot be seen as an anomalous event. And the evidence is that more energy is also clearly being dissipated as heat than is being delivered by the supply. Therefore one may conclude that - subject to there being no measurement errors, that there may well be an alternate energy supply source that recharges the supply. Whatever the result there is an evident breach in Charge Conservation required by mainstream. Unless, this can somehow be accounted for in just such an alternate energy supply source.

Now. Inquorate proposes something similar - albeit with a different thesis requiring this. He suggests that inductors may be employed to recharge a battery. 'Fag' the heat. GroundLoop's experiment seems to endorse this. He can change the 'rest state' of two flat batteries to something greater than that rest state by doing nothing more than introducing a switching cycle. Again. The experimental evidence seems to support this.

While it is appropriate to check if there are perhaps incorrect measurements I am not sure that it's appropriate to argue what is happening on the circuit that may 'obviate' this claim. Clearly if the results are 'happening' as reported and if, as mentioned they are not erroneous measurements, then, with the utmost respect, I do not think that mainstream have the required 'argument' to support this evidence. They have been denying it's possibility for many years and across many generations. Therefore to understand the event may require an alternative explanation.

And again, if these results are evident from a circuit modified to run from an AC power supply source and if the numbers persist - then the results are conclusive - IMHO. One cannot then argue battery vagaries which is the only argument that has been seriously advanced - thus far.

[sucahyo]

When simulator can not simulate our circuit, we have something outside the theory .

[witsend]

When simulator can not simulate our circuit, we have something outside the theory .

LOL sucahyo. I absolutely agree. The hell of it is that simulators can show this gain. How does one explain THAT?

[smw1998a]

Hi Witsend,

'Moot' as it's unproven. 'Irrelevant' only to this argument.

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.

'sinister'? That's a strange choice of words? Do you suspect a 'hidden' energy supply source?

My first thought was that Groundloops attachment account is full and he has had to have a clear out. A more sinister reason would be 'he has been told to remove the schematics' which is the context I used the word sinister. I have followed Groundloops work, on and off, for many years and I would never imply that he is cheating or misleading anybody. However, in the earlier circuits I saw in the COP>1 thread Groundloop's circuit did have separate supply and the charge batteries were independent of that supply.

Lee. I'm going to try this one. Experimentally I only know my own circuit. There is clear evidence of energy being delivered by the battery - shown by voltage across the shunt. Then there is clear evidence of energy delivered by the resistor. Again voltage evidence is across the shunt. Both work in antiphase to each other. The first cycle results in a discharge to the supply. The second cycle results in a recharge to the supply. Both charge and discharge values are measurable across the supply. And the two values from both cycles are nearly equal - alternately showing either more or less from either the source or the load. The returning energy, however, appears to dominate that measured result indicating that, with fine tuning, the result can persist. What I mean here is that because the experimental results persist - over time, then it cannot be seen as an anomalous event. And the evidence is that more energy is also clearly being dissipated as heat than is being delivered by the supply. Therefore one may conclude that - subject to there being no measurement errors, that there may well be an alternate energy supply source that recharges the supply. Whatever the result there is an evident breach in Charge Conservation required by mainstream. Unless, this can somehow be accounted for in just such an alternate energy supply source.

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.

Now. Inquorate proposes something similar - albeit with a different thesis requiring this. He suggests that inductors may be employed to recharge a battery. 'Fag' the heat. GroundLoop's experiment seems to endorse this. He can change the 'rest state' of two flat batteries to something greater than that rest state by doing nothing more than introducing a switching cycle. Again. The experimental evidence seems to support this.

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...

While it is appropriate to check if there are perhaps incorrect measurements I am not sure that it's appropriate to argue what is happening on the circuit that may 'obviate' this claim. Clearly if the results are 'happening' as reported and if, as mentioned they are not erroneous measurements, then, with the utmost respect, I do not think that mainstream have the required 'argument' to support this evidence. They have been denying it's possibility for many years and across many generations. Therefore to understand the event may require an alternative explanation.

And again, if these results are evident from a circuit modified to run from an AC power supply source and if the numbers persist - then the results are conclusive - IMHO. One cannot then argue battery vagaries which is the only argument that has been seriously advanced - thus far.

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 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.

Regards Lee...

[smw1998a]

When simulator can not simulate our circuit, we have something outside the theory .

Hi Sucahyo,
Simulators are only as good as the data put in them and it's often pointed out that we don't have all the answers so how can a simulator answer all our questions. I never use them, particularly for analogue work or circuits that are outside convention. The actions and reaction of most components are "best estimate" models and the more components you string together the wider the "best estimate" model gets. You try and get a simulator to mimic the behavior of one of your batteries or an inductor you have hand wound. You see my point?

Regards Lee...