New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Benches > PhysicsProf (Moderator: PhysicsProf) > New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters

2024-11-27, 13:42:40
News: A

feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Author Topic: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters (Read 17040 times)

PhysicsProf	New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « on: 2011-11-05, 03:40:12 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	New Renaissance Prizes Dr. Steven Jones Emeritus Professor of Physics Three Golden-Eagle gold coins to be given, And up to 120 Silver-Eagle coins. By me. 1. Silver Eagle prize for allowing FREE lab-test: First, your tests indicate that your build has more output power than input power -- and has output power of at least 1Watt on a load, and you will allow me to test/verify it . (“Black box” is OK, if you wish; you don’t have to tell me what’s inside, as long as there are no hidden batteries or capacitors). Do your best and submit your entry for me to look at: EMdevice12@yahoo.com Once OK’ed, I will also pay shipping both ways. Results announced on forums; details of your device ONLY released WHEN you approve. No galvanic batteries or "borrowing" from the electric-power grid, please! 2. Gold Eagle (see photo below) prize if your device truly shows more Pout than Pin in my FREE tests, and you agree to seek to make the device available to mankind worldwide quickly. (With a fair profit to the builder, that’s fine and I’ll even help!) 3. A self-running device that also powers a load at over 30W will receive an additional Gold Eagle coin, the Double-Gold-Eagle prize! Total value today, spot prices alone: Gold $1,754.38/ounce X 3 = $5263.14 Silver $34.13/ounce X 120 = $4095.60. Total: $9,358.74. These coins come from my father who passed away two years ago, an electronics engineer who would – I am sure – favor this use of the inheritance. I realize that I can’t build and test all the good ideas myself (although I keep experimenting!), but I can help others by using my training and experience to do PhD-level testing – and then assist in getting the product out the door to families everywhere. That’s my goal. The "contest" ends when either ALL THREE of the Gold Eagles are awarded, OR all 120 Silver Eagles are awarded. Questions or suggestions? Let me know! Background. My website: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ When I read about Dr. Henry Moray’s self-running electricity-generating device, I was intrigued. Then I read about tests done by physicist Harvey Fletcher on it and became quite convinced – Dr. Fletcher wrote: "The device was contained in a small wooden box... which I, personally, inspected... The electrical load...consisted of 12 clear 75 Watt 100 Volt light bulbs and a 500 Watt electric flat iron... I did not know how the device functioned and I do not know today, but I do know that it did function for the several hours of time that I observed it. I could discern no batteries, and could observe no other known methods of inducing electric power into the box or its loads." I have jumped in and seen some “anomalous power effects” myself, but not claiming OU yet in my builds… (See, for example, my thread here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg287594#msg287594 and here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=762.0 ) I’m excited about the world-wide community hacking away at this problem… and I would like to provide encouragement and help where possible. A “New Renaissance”? Catch the vision! Galileo’s pioneering experiments – along with others -- lead to a Renaissance, a renewal of society and of the human spirit. We live in exciting times – “end times” some would say. I believe that we also live in the “times of refreshing” spoken of by Peter (Acts 3:19). With all the protests and upheavals going on there is also a prospect of “refreshing” or “renaissance” – a “New Renaissance” is quite possible with a clean, inexpensive energy invention. A source of electrical power that will make individuals and families independent of fossil fuels will have revolutionary impact -- a new Renaissance! The first step is to see an “unconventional generator” like Moray’s actually work and be reproducible. But a crucial second phase lies in getting this out to people without having it stomped on. (We could discuss why Big Oil and Big Government might prefer to keep up the status-quo oil/tax profits rather than allowing people to produce power in their own homes and electric cars… Some of you know what happened to Dr. Moray’s device.) Time is short and the need of humanity is great for a compact, non-polluting power source. Many face debilitating economic depression, while the globalist big-oil companies continue to reak in outrageous profits. Do they really want to see 5kWatt-scale devices that use no fossil fuels in individual homes and cars? I’ll let you answer that one. The New Renaissance prizes are offered to those who think they have a working OU device and would like a quick verification, and who are willing to seriously endeavor to get the device out to humanity rather than selling out to “the powers that be.” TIMING Let’s all have a wonderful Christmas and New Year – with OU completely confirmed ASAP . To be frank, I have a seminar-talk on 9 March 2012 at a large university and I would REALLY like to award a Gold Eagle prize or two before then! Here is the abstract for my talk: Quote Alternative Energy: History and Prospects Steven E. Jones Emeritus Professor of Physics Physicist Harvey Fletcher at age 94 wrote a notarized affidavit affirming that he had examined a device invented by Henry Moray of Salt Lake City: "The device was contained in a small wooden box... which I, personally, inspected... The electrical load...consisted of 12 clear 75 Watt 100 Volt light bulbs and a 500 Watt electric flat iron... I did not know how the device functioned and I do not know today, but I do know that it did function for the several hours of time that I observed it. I could discern no batteries, and could observe no other known methods of inducing electric power into the box or its loads." What is this mysterious device and what happened to it and the inventor? Are there others like it today? Throughout my career as a physicist, I have sought for alternative energy sources for mankind. My principle conclusions on metal-catalyzed ("cold") fusion have been experimentally validated just as discoveries of our team regarding muon-catalyzed fusion were replicated and verified. However, those fusion yields are currently too small to have practical application for power generation. Twenty years ago, I developed a Solar Funnel Cooker and offered it free to all, including hundreds of working models which I sent throughout the world. That invention certainly works. But the class of Moray devices intrigues me more... Please email me to discuss your proposed device entry: emdevice12@yahoo.com . Let’s empower the people of our planet (rather than the super-wealthy) and start a New Renaissance! Thanks! Example devices that could be entered -- if your build meets the criteria for at least the Silver Eagle prize (some I’ve been working on, too): Quote Thane Heins' BiTT and variants; Gabriel device. Steve Mark TPU. Hendershot Device. Dr. Henry Moray Device. Alfred Hubbard Device. Hans Coler Device. Daniel McFarland Cook Coil. AVEC –type Device. Magnacoaster-type. Kapandaze device. Edwin Gray device. Don Smith/ Zilano device. Electret device. Stubblefield coils. Turtur transformer. Testakita machine. 'Rotoverters'. Bedini device. Brown's resonant battery. Seiko 'G-Strain' Amplifier. Monopole Mobius coil. Joule Thief / sj1 - style circuits. Robert Adams device. Muller/Romero device. Tesla-Brandt /Matt Jones switches. Rossi's E-Cat. Floyd 'Sparky' Sweet's device. Jim Watson device. Peter Daysh Davey device. John Searle device. Dr Stiffler device. Joseph Longo's Plasma Converter. Thanks to Deep Cut (Gary) for making the list (which I’ve edited). Summary: Three 1-ounce Golden Eagle coins and up to 120 1-oz Silver Eagle prizes are hereby offered, to encourage inventors and builders to join me in the pursuit of “New Renaissance” energy to EM-power the good folks of our planet. ------------------------ New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters SilverGoldEagleCoins.jpg (68.65 kB, 693x275 - viewed 1285 times.)

exnihiloest	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #1 on: 2011-11-05, 12:01:13 »
Group: Guest	A real free energy invention could yield billions to its inventor. So imho free energy prizes are useless except if they are very honorific as a Nobel prize. To help people when they have already discovered the holy graal (OU) is easy, but it not a help: too late! A real help should be given before the invention, for the future inventor to lead his experiments, thanks to his prize. This means that we would have to evaluate projects and reward the best promising ideas. It is much more complicated but only in this case, it would be useful for the possible inventor.

ion	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #2 on: 2011-11-05, 14:43:57 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Dear Physics Prof. Thank you for extending the generous offer to all of us. It is appreciated. I think you are looking under the right rocks when you examine the Moray device and the report of Dr. Fletcher. You may also want to look at the lab reports of Dr. Schinzinger and the Steven Mark device, a more recent anomaly that went completely hush around 1997, with information trickling onto the internet almost ten years later, info or disinfo...you decide. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #3 on: 2011-11-05, 15:17:34 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-11-05, 12:01:13 A real help should be given before the invention, for the future inventor to lead his experiments, thanks to his prize. This means that we would have to evaluate projects and reward the best promising ideas. It is much more complicated but only in this case, it would be useful for the possible inventor. You see, this is the basic goal of the Silver Eagle Prizes (plural) -- to "evaluate projects and reward... promising ideas". Lucre, however, is not the goal -- rather serving humanity. I have taken the latter approach in providing hundreds of Solar Funnel Cookers (mostly out of my pocket, with help from a friend also). I have not made one DIME profit on these inventions, but they are out there now, throughout the world, helping families cook their food.

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #4 on: 2011-11-05, 15:19:08 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: ION on 2011-11-05, 14:43:57 Dear Physics Prof. Thank you for extending the generous offer to all of us. It is appreciated. I think you are looking under the right rocks when you examine the Moray device and the report of Dr. Fletcher. You may also want to look at the lab reports of Dr. Schinzinger and the Steven Mark device, a more recent anomaly that went completely hush around 1997, with information trickling onto the internet almost ten years later, info or disinfo...you decide. Thank you, ION. Can you point me to this "more recent anomaly that went completely hush around 1997" ? I don't know about it, I think.

giantkiller	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #5 on: 2011-11-05, 18:09:35 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1593 Frequency equals matter...	Only $9k for a billion watt half life and Brigham Young in tow? Nice try... --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #6 on: 2011-11-05, 19:01:32 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: giantkiller on 2011-11-05, 18:09:35 Only $9k for a billion watt half life and Brigham Young in tow? Nice try... Sorry, this is not about big bucks; all I have is a "widow's mite", but its bigger than the prize offered here at OUR. I'm confident fair returns will follow to the builder who is willing to see his invention benefit humanity rather than selling out to Big Oil or GE... I don't know what you mean by "and Brigham Young in tow" -- please explain. It makes no sense to me. For example, I have left BYU and any intellectual property or invention I develop would be mine, not theirs. So please explain.

ion	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #7 on: 2011-11-06, 01:18:53 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-11-05, 15:19:08 Thank you, ION. Can you point me to this "more recent anomaly that went completely hush around 1997" ? I don't know about it, I think. Please start here and read as much as you can stand: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=403.0 There are tons more info. Steven Mark was able to create current flow of several KW without using standard "Faraday induction" as is found in nearly all electrical generating appliances. Please read the letters, lab report, and testimony of Dr. Schinzinger in that link. There is a lot here on OUR forum, but a lot has also been lost. No one knows how it was done. I'm talking about the large 17" toroidal device, not the others which can be easily faked. Get in contact with Lindsay Mannix, he is the expert knowledge base on the subject. I think his handle here is "gridbias". Some of the best minds here believe it was real, and that, after at least five years of intensive study. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

gridbias	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #8 on: 2011-11-06, 07:22:09 »
Group: Guest	http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.8265 I sent a buch of you an email but had many bounce back. everything here is in line with Stevens hints ...which were always vague. Enjoy!..back to about page 500 foward Just an opinoin ...but when this stuff gets "around a bit" I think there will be a lot of misunderstanding and turmoil The foundations of capatalisim will shudder. Let's hope democracy still works ..it seems that ferro resonance does

exnihiloest	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #9 on: 2011-11-06, 11:11:03 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-11-05, 15:17:34 ... Lucre, however, is not the goal -- rather serving humanity. ... Well, in this case, not one prize is necessary! And I wonder why you spoke about dollars ("Gold $1,754.38/ounce X 3 = $5263.14 Silver $34.13/ounce X 120 = $4095.60. Total: $9,358.74."). Lucre is not the goal. I agree and I consider that your attitude concerning this prize is very respectable. Mine is pragmatic. I only gave a viewpoint. The little glory of obtaining a prize is not more the goal. I have not spoken of "lucre" but of money for leading experiments, which seems to me a much more efficient way to attain our goal, than giving a prize to someone who has already succeeded in obtaining OU.

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #10 on: 2011-11-07, 05:56:44 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	XN -- I plan to note the trend in gold and silver prices from time to time, as a barometer of what is happening in the world economic scheme. I predict the prices of gold and silver will rise from the values recorded in the first post. I’m active on several forums as well as getting PMs regarding the concept of a New Renaissance and the New Renaissance Prizes. Some general responses follow: I’m a lay leader in my local church and I will be honest and tell you what I find about your device and help you all I can to get it out to PEOPLE. (If your main interest is in MONEY, please reconsider and search your heart regarding greed before you proceed...). At my home electronics bench I currently employ: Two DSO Oscilloscopes (including one that can MULTIPLY V(t) and I(t) to give the POWER waveform), several DMM’s including a Keithley, clamp-on meters, and three Kill-o-Watt meters, a DC power supply and a Variac. I have done some calorimetry also – which may be the ultimate way to prove high efficiency (power output that is actually measured, over power input). Since these prizes are to encourage a device that will go out rather freely to bless mankind, I would sign only a non-disclosure agreement with a limited time period. Open source during this testing is preferred. I would strongly discourage seeking patents. When Henry Moray sought a patent, his device was actually clobbered by an agent sent by the government (Felix Frazer). There are stories of other devices receiving a stamp of “Classified” – “do not discuss” under threat of jail-time. We must be wise about these matters and not assume that “they” will help us in our quest for non-fossil-fuel energy sources. Furthermore, any OU device will almost certainly evolve very rapidly to new and exciting products that would circumvent even the best patents. There is a better way to proceed. Here are some brief suggestions regarding how to proceed from working OU device –TO- getting this device into homes of individuals and families QUICKLY. 1. A device is developed in public forums (open source) or privately, to the point where the device produces more actual/measured power out than power in, i.e., OU. 2. The easier to obtain necessary components and build the device, the better. Clearly, some devices are much more complicated than others -- such as the RomeroUK device compared to a Thane Heins transformer. 3. The device should be replicated and thoroughly tested and built by individuals in several countries, while we back off from details in public forums for a while. Non-exclusive licenses with principal inventors may be appropriate, with royalties to go to the inventors and detailed plans to trusted builders. 4. On an agreed-upon date, a simultaneous announcement is made by device-builders around the globe, and concerted efforts are made to get into local media. At this point, the “genie is out of the bottle” and hopefully the innovation will not be stoppable by opposing “powers that be.” 5. Distributed manufacture continues. Devices are demonstrated and sold (as “research devices” if needed to avoid regulatory constraints) at a fair profit, with royalties flowing to the inventors. 6. At some point, Chinese companies will probably jump in and grab the new technology, and make them cheaper… to everyone’s benefit hopefully, in the end. So, first we develop the “anomalous” power generator, but then we must proceed cautiously/wisely to “EM-power the people” without having the device stomped down to the ground by the “powers that be.” Please not the following relevant upcoming colloquium at a large university: http://www.physics.byu.edu/TalkList.aspx?talkID=247 « Last Edit: 2011-11-07, 06:44:22 by PhysicsProf »

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #11 on: 2011-11-11, 04:33:36 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	FYI -- My own research is focusing on what is called the "Thane Heins effect", or the "delayed-Lenz effect." This can be achieved in two ways currently: 1. A motor-generator with control of the RPM's 2. A transformer approach, with control of frequency of the input voltage on the primary.' Here, I feel like I'm starting to understand the Physics a bit, though still climbing the learning curve. I personally prefer the solid-state approach, #2, no moving parts. So -- assuming some of you are likewise interested, let me point you to a series of youtube vids that describe both approaches 1&2 -- OverunityGuide (OUG) does a great job IMO in these vids, and they have been archived by my friend Gary (DeepCut), today. I have just reviewed the 7 vids by OUG on this subject, and found more enlightment after viewing some a second time. The last (#7) is my favorite, and this will also get you the list: OUG ARCHIVE 7. MOT Microwave Oven Transformer Delayed Lenz Experiment. - YouTube Thanks, DeepCut! The attachment screen-shot is from OUG's vid, in DC's archive, to show the microwave-oven transformer OUG used. Cool -- basically off the shelf. Of course, he needed a signal generator to get up to 950 Hz on the input, to get the delayed Lenz effect. I'd love to see such an off-the-shelf Xfo that gave the delayed Lenz effect at 60 Hz (or 50 Hz, Europe etc). THEN just about anyone could do this... Note that OUG is not now claiming OU, just the delayed Lenz effect. I finished my first Thane-type hand-wound transformer today, played with it until I blew the fuse on my Variac... Oh, well, fuses are cheap. ------------------------ New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters OUGwMOT-Thane.jpg (182.42 kB, 927x526 - viewed 1299 times.)

MileHigh	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #12 on: 2011-11-11, 23:24:17 »
Group: Guest	PhysicsProf: Please keep in mind that these tests are what would simply be called "filter analysis." The essence of this is that you feed a pure sine wave into the filter and you observe the phase and amplitudes of all of the signals in the filter. You also sweep the sine wave in frequency and observe the changes in the amplitudes of the current and voltage waveforms. In this particular analysis it's a bit more complicated because there is a mechanical component to the filter, the spinning rotor. So there is truly no "Thane Heins effect", or the "delayed-Lenz effect," it's incorrect nomenclature. Then people's preconceptions affect their judgement and as a result the conclusions from the analysis can be incorrect. For example, the conscious or unconscious preconception is that the rotor shouldn't speed up when you short a pick-up coil. The truth is that if you have never made this test you simply don't know what will happen when you short a coil. So people see a rotor speeding up and they think they are seeing a "new" or "unexpected" effect and they are on to something. They are letting their preconceptions guide their conclusions. It's a mistake that merits some thought. The implication in the term "delayed-Lenz effect" is that you are somehow cheating Lenz' law and you have discovered a "work around" and as a result you are getting more output energy because you have less Lenz drag. This of course is not true. Seeing the rotor speed up when you change your setup is not remarkable, even if you observe your input current draw go down. OUG's clips make me squirm because he is using a pulse-with modulation motor controller as his (ostensibly) sine wave source. It's simply crazy, shockingly out of the realm of "normalcy" for doing these tests. The simple solution is to get a good old-fashioned analog audio amplifier at a garage sale or on Craig's List. A 100-watt audio amplifier combined with some simple audio software for your computer sound card and you have your variable-frequency high-power sine wave out. You won't get anything approaching mains power but you don't need it. You have a motor that might consume 10 watts and an audio amplifier that can output 100 watts, it's a no-brainer. If you need higher voltage output from the audio amplifier, just connect a 2:1 step-up transformer to the output. Again, this is all just a disguised exercise in simple filter analysis where the filter consists of resistive and reactive capacitive and inductive components and non-linear components due to the ferrite cores. There is no excess energy to be found and it's all pretty straightforward if you have studied this stuff. The different resistive, capacitive, and inductive components of the filter can be punched into a 3x3 or 4x4 matrix, and you do some matrix multiplications and then get output the responses from the filter for all of the variables. A typical example would be to calculate the output response from the crossover network filter that's used in a 3-way audio speaker. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2011-11-12, 05:55:30 by MileHigh »

ion	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #13 on: 2011-11-11, 23:59:26 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-11-11, 23:24:17 PhysicsProf: Please keep in mind that these tests are what would simply be called "filter analysis." The essence of this is that you feed a pure sine wave into the filter and you observe the phase and amplitudes of all of the signals in the filter. You also sweep the sine wave in frequency and observe the changes in the amplitudes of the current and voltage waveforms. In this particular analysis it's a bit more complicated because there is a mechanical component to the filter, the spinning rotor. So there is truly no "Thane Heins effect", or the "delayed-Lenz effect," it's incorrect nomenclature. Then people's preconceptions affect their judgement and as a result the conclusions from the analysis can be incorrect. For example, the conscious or unconscious preconception is that the rotor shouldn't speed up when you short a pick-up coil. The truth is that if you have never made this test you simply don't know what will happen when you short a coil. So people see a rotor speeding up and they think they are seeing a "new" or "unexpected" effect and they are on to something. They are letting their preconceptions guide their conclusions. It's a mistake that merits some thought. The implication in the term "delayed-Lenz effect" is that you are somehow cheating Lenz' law and you have discovered a "work around" and as a result you are getting more output energy because you have less Lenz drag. This of course is not true. Seeing the rotor speed up when you change your setup is not remarkable, even if you observe your input current draw go down. OUG's clips make me squirm because he is using a pulse-with modulation motor controller as his (ostensibly) sine wave source. It's simply crazy, shockingly out of the realm of "normalcy" for doing these tests. The simple solution is to get a good old-fashioned analog audio amplifier at a garage sale or on Craig's List. A 100-watt audio amplifier combined with some simple audio software for your computer sound card and you have your variable-frequency high-power sine wave out. You won't get anything approaching mains power but you don't need it. You have a motor that might consume 10 watts and an audio amplifier that can output 100 watts, it's a no-brainer. If you need higher voltage output from the audio amplifier, just connect a 2:1 step-up transformer to the output. Again, this is all just a disguised exercise in simple filter analysis where the filter consists of resistive and reactive capacitive and inductive components and non-linear components due to the ferrite cores. There is no excess energy to be found and it's all pretty straightforward if you have studied this stuff. The different resistive, capacitive, and inductive components of the filter can be punched into a 3x3 or 4x4 matrix, and you do some matrix multiplications and then get output the responses from the filter for all of the variables. A typical example would be to calculate the output response froms the crossover network filter that's used in a 3-way audio speaker. MileHigh I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue MH. I have a few very robust and forgiving 100W tube amplifiers and sine oscillators that I use for just this type of test. "Thane Heins effect" and legend will live on long after he has given up and moved on. These things seem to have a life of their own. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #14 on: 2011-11-12, 18:20:39 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	MH -- I appreciate your idea of how to make a sine-wave signal generator.. Thanks. You write: Quote The implication in the term "delayed-Lenz effect" is that you are somehow cheating Lenz' law and you have discovered a "work around" and as a result you are getting more output energy because you have less Lenz drag. This of course is not true. Seeing the rotor speed up when you change your setup is not remarkable, even if you observe your input current draw go down. I have to tell you that the "OF COURSE" argument is not persuasive to me. I go with experiments, not with conventional wisdom or "of course" arguments. Now, I suggest we set aside the "rotor speed up" business involving motors -- AND turn our attention to the Bi-toroidal Transformer (BiTT) EXPERIMENTS. No moving parts. Much easier (for me at least) to replicate. Here, I would like to discuss with you and ION and DeepCut and anyone else interested, the EXPERIMENTAL data. Let us start with this video of experiments performed by OUGuide (OUG), and archived by Deepcut -- see attachment for a screenshot from this vid, which can be viewed (will you watch it?) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQhwSDDCQY OUG demonstrates that at 200 Hz, the MOT behaves as we would expect from a normal transformer, that is: PF = 0 with no load and PF = 1 (approx) with load. BUT -- by going to 950 Hz, he shows that the PF stays at zero without OR WITH load. (In an earlier vid in DC's archive, OUG shows the same effect with an incandescent light as the load; different transformer.) And, correspondingly, the watt-meter shows that the input power goes DOWN when the load is applied at 950 Hz (Pin goes up when load is applied at 200 Hz). These are experimental data to be explained. My questions: Is the observed effect at 950 Hz due to decreased REAL input power being required with load (suggesting a possible path to OU) -- or is it merely a problem with the watt-meter? What MEASUREMENTS can we do to answer the question? (no "of course" arguments, please) ------------------------ New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters OUGwMOT-Thane.jpg (182.42 kB, 927x526 - viewed 1163 times.)

MileHigh	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #15 on: 2011-11-13, 08:47:40 »
Group: Guest	PhysicsProf: Quote Is the observed effect at 950 Hz due to decreased REAL input power being required with load (suggesting a possible path to OU) -- or is it merely a problem with the watt-meter? It's like I said in my previous posting. The only thing that you can say is when he adds the LED light bulb load is that the overall impedance of the setup increases, and as a result the watt meter shows less power being drawn by the setup. It doesn't prove anything except that the overall impedance changed. There is no "effect" associated with connecting the LED light bulb load to the transformer, none. The same thing applies to the "phase shift" that was observed at the higher frequency. It means nothing and anyone that is familiar with how filters work would not be surprised to see this happening, even with the abomination of a pulse-width-modulated voltage source being used to emulate a sine wave. Thane's premise that he can set up a zero power factor on the input and then get real power on the output is simply wrong. Around here we have looked at a few of his clips in detail and they are pretty bad. For example, zero power factor that you can try to eyeball on a scope implies that you are dealing with clean sine waves for the voltage and current waveforms. Lots of the waveforms in Thane's clips are not even close to being sinusoidal. Under these conditions you can't eyeball anything with respect to power factor anymore and you are in DSO territory to calculate the input power. From looking at his clips, Thane is blissfully ignorant of this fact. Same thing applies to OUG. Most of the time what Thane is doing is over-driving his transformer primary and saturating the transformer core. You can hear the setup humming at 60 Hz and burning off a lot of power in the transformer itself. Then he extracts a few watts into a load. Besides the fact that the waveforms are not sinusoidal, you can assume that the small load does cause a small phase shift between the voltage and the current and there is some real power being drawn from the mains power source. However, the phase shift might be very small, less than one-half of one degree and as a result it's easy to convince yourself that you are still looking at a 90-degree phase shift on your scope display when in fact you aren't. I doubt the issue of how to make very precise phase shift measurements has come up at all in the discussions. Quote What MEASUREMENTS can we do to answer the question? For that nightmarish setup it would be next to impossible. With state-of-the-art DSO's I suppose that you could do an energy audit trail and measure how much power each component in the circuit was dissipating. The motor controller, the transformer, the LED light bulb, etc. If you made very precise measurements you would get "power pies slices" for each component in the circuit and they would all add up and equal be the input power pie. Note when you connect the LED light bulb load the total size of the power pie decreases, because the overall impedance of the circuit increases like I stated above. Nonetheless, you could make a new round of measurements and find that the total power dissipated in the circuit is equal to the amount of power being supplied to the circuit. Do you understand where I am coming from? To connect a load to a transformer and see the power consumption decrease means absolutely nothing unless you can account for all of the components in the circuit that are dissipating power. So the clip proves nothing. It's really too bad that the level of critical analysis of clips like this is so tepid. It's like this on YouTube, on the Energetic Forum, on Overunity, and even around here sometimes. You are looking at a clip where multiple devices are dissipating power, all of the loads are non-linear, and the excitation waveform for the microwave oven transformer is a bloody nightmare, and almost nobody says anything. The group peer pressure to keep on congratulating each other is much stronger than the group peer pressure to do some serious analysis and push each other to get up the learning curve. Many people think that OUG is a "hero" for making his series of clips but the real truth of the matter is that he is a good-intentioned beginning experimenter that is in over his head. No "Thane effect" was proven in that clip, the only thing that was proven was that the overall impedance of the setup increased slightly when he added the LED light bulb load. So that's just the tip of the iceberg. So the impedance changed, what next? MileHigh « Last Edit: 2011-11-13, 18:04:27 by MileHigh »

MileHigh	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #16 on: 2011-11-13, 09:12:11 »
Group: Guest	PhysicProf: One more important comment about the clip: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQhwSDDCQY[/youtube] At 6:10 in this clip OUG is ostensibly showing the "ninety-degree phase shift" between the input "sine wave" and the output "sine wave." He says, "It's exactly ninety degrees" a few seconds later in the clip. It's garbage. Look at the clip at 6:10. What do you see in the upper waveform? Can you really tell me where the peaks of the "sine wave" are in the upper waveform. The answer is that you can't. Nor can OUG tell where they are. Which "thicker pulse" corresponds to the peak of the "sine wave" for he upper trace? You can barely make a vague estimate of the phase shift between the upper pulse-width-modulation waveform and the dirty, spikey filtered-out pseudo sine wave in the lower trace. Nobody can realistically say that they are looking at a ninety-degree phase shift in that clip and yet OUG does make that statement and then gets heaps of praise from the participants on the other forums. That's a typical example of why I have given up, it's simply too crazy on the part of the enthusiasts and too frustrating on my part. MileHigh

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #17 on: 2011-11-13, 23:09:24 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-11-13, 08:47:40 ... With state-of-the-art DSO's I suppose that you could do an energy audit trail and measure how much power each component in the circuit was dissipating. The motor controller, the transformer, the LED light bulb, etc. If you made very precise measurements you would get "power pies slices" for each component in the circuit and they would all add up and equal be the input power pie. Note when you connect the LED light bulb load the total size of the power pie decreases, because the overall impedance of the circuit increases like I stated above. Nonetheless, you could make a new round of measurements and find that the total power dissipated in the circuit is equal to the amount of power being supplied to the circuit. Do you understand where I am coming from? To connect a load to a transformer and see the power consumption decrease means absolutely nothing unless you can account for all of the components in the circuit that are dissipating power. So the clip proves nothing. ...[snip] MileHigh I do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU. Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion." I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run. Which brings me to Rossi's e-cat claims -- and bold claims they are (see PESN for example). I've been following this and asking questions. I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction. There is some recent information -- let's take a look at the latest data that has come out: Quote http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece The used powder contains ten percent copper ... For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to capture a proton. The fact that this possibly occurs in Rossi’s reactor is why the concept of cold fusion has been mentioned – it would consist of fusion between nuclei of nickel and hydrogen. A term that many consider to be more accurate, however, is LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Ny Teknik: For how long has the powder supposedly been used in the process? Kullander: The powder has reportedly been used for 2.5 months continuously with an output of 10 kW (according to Rossi). It corresponds to a total energy of 18 MWh, with a consumption of up to 100 grams of nickel and two grams of hydrogen. If the production had been done with oil, two tons of oil would have been required. Ny Teknik: What analyses have you done on the powders? Kullander: Element analysis and isotopic analysis. At the Ångström Laboratory in Uppsala, Sweden, element analysis has been made using X-ray Fluorescence (XRFS). Dr. Erik Lindahl undertook the investigation. At the Biomedical Center in Uppsala, both element analysis and isotope analysis has been done through Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Associate Professor Jean Pettersson has made the measurement. Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results? Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural. Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition". As the scientist under-states: Quote it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. . Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition: Quote Ni-58 ( 68.077% ) Ni-60 ( 26.223% ) Ni-61 ( 1.140% ) Ni-62 ( 3.634% ) Ni-64 ( 0.926% ) http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable! And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel. I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device. NO positive response from him yet. I noted: Quote Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s – short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not. Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not But now we learn that the end products are NOT Cu-59 (which decays to Ni-59, decays in turn to cobalt-59 finally) and Cu-61, but rather the NATURALLY occurring isotopes found in copper, namely copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%) [percents are approx.]. Now how do you explain THAT? easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device. That's my preliminary conclusion. This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above. If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from? BUT-- If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi -- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO. How do you get copper-63 (70%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel? And- How do you get copper-65 (30%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel? We're talking about NEUTRONS coming out of nowhere? where? in order to get up to the naturally-occuring ratio of Cu-63(70%) and Cu-65 (30)%. Where do these neutrons come from, in just the right ratios? Do you grasp the problem? One more time: proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65). You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds). C'mon-- we're not that gullible... IMHO, we should be skeptical. Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims. Sorry. Note from Steven Krivit of New Energy Times, regarding the Rossi claims: Quote But the time-honored question to ask in all situations like this is, What is the total energy balance? Anybody who gets excited about this public demonstration without such information is vulnerable to deception. The next questions to ask are, Exactly how has the energy been measured? And by whom? A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions. The red flags with Rossi have been up for months. In October 2010, a New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me: “I imagine you are aware that Rossi’s patent [application] has been [partially] rejected in a preliminary report by the patent examiner. Piantelli also published a new WIPO patent [application] a few months ago too. “I wish Rossi well in his endeavors although I also feel he’s claiming as an invention merely the scaling up of Piantelli’s pioneering work. Any working devices ought to be good news for mankind regardless [of] who discovered what first. If anything works, we will all get some share of the glory (and perhaps profits?).” Today, another New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me: “Pay close attention to Andrea Rossi; he has a dirty past. Twenty years ago he was arrested for illegal importing of gold from the Swiss. “Not only that, but in the 1980s he was involved in a scam with industrial waste. It is a complex thing to explain, but the scam cost the Lombardy region € 25 million. He honestly does not convince me as a person, and I am not convinced about the test done at Bologna today. “Check this link: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroldragon “In friendship, I suggest you be careful, I smell something burning.” According to the link, in 1995, Rossi was jailed for conspiracy to engage in tax fraud for his involvement in a business that was trading precious materials between Switzerland and Italy.

MileHigh	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #18 on: 2011-11-14, 03:32:53 »
Group: Guest	PhysicsProf: Yes the missing neutrons problem is interesting. It's been many years since I sat in a physics class when we did this stuff and I will defer to your expertise but here are my thoughts after reading what you said. There are three main flavours of hydrogen atoms, and two of them have neutrons. Is there a possibility that the required neutrons come from deuterium nuclei? I am assuming that there is series of potential nuclear reactions that have their statistical probabilities to turn hydrogen into copper based on the isotopes etc. Like you stated there are intermediate stages, some with very short half-lifes. Each one of those reactions will either give off gamma rays or fire off a high-energy neutron and should leave a detectable signature. I don't know if these reactions between nickel and hydrogen have ever been studied. Ultimately, you would think that Rossi would write up all of the atomic equations showing their probabilities and energy releases. The enigma remains about how a hydrogen atom bouncing around inside a lattice of nickel atoms can reach the energies required to create fusion, assuming that our current understanding of the fusion process is correct. However, our understanding might not be complete, which opens up at least the possibility of cold fusion. However, I am really skeptical that this is possible. There is a huge energy barrier that has to be overcome to get past the electrical repulsion, and then you still have to have more energy to hit the nucleus with sufficient energy to fuse, etc. How could cold fusion get past this huge energy barrier? I don't think there is any way to make this barrier "disappear" to facilitate cold fusion. Rossi says there is a catalyst involved in the atomic reaction. That implies intermediate stages with smaller energy steps, but ultimately you still have to overcome this overwhelmingly huge energy barrier, catalyst or no catalyst. I share the opinion of many that the test results are incomplete and there is no independent accountability. I view the steam production as almost a red herring. The simplest test would be to take a single ECat module and provide the electrical energy required to start the (alleged) reaction and then simply have the device heat a known flow rate of water that runs into the device on one side and out of the device on the other side. Monitor the electrical energy provided to the device (presumably only on start-up) and the record the water flow rate and temperature in and temperature out. It's the simplest and most obvious and most "no brainer" way to measure the heat production of the device and Rossi didn't do that. If a test like that was ran for a full week 24/7 that would be interesting, and it would get the attention of mainstream science, and then mainstream media. I suppose we can use time as the litmus test. Where will Rossi be in November 2012? If he hasn't perceptibly moved forward with his proposition, then I would assume it's just another inexplicable case of some kind of grand confidence play to attract somebody's attention and keep some money flowing. MileHigh

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #19 on: 2011-11-14, 20:56:50 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-11-14, 03:32:53 PhysicsProf: Yes the missing neutrons problem is interesting. It's been many years since I sat in a physics class when we did this stuff and I will defer to your expertise but here are my thoughts after reading what you said. There are three main flavours of hydrogen atoms, and two of them have neutrons. Is there a possibility that the required neutrons come from deuterium nuclei? [snip] MileHigh I thought of deuterium, also -- but a report notes: Quote Rossi claims that deuterium does not work http://pesn.com/2011/07/14/9501868_E-Cat_news_coming_fast_and_furious/ Now, to get the neutrons, one can capture a proton, then eject a positron for each proton absorbed. Very unlikely due to an ENORMOUS Coulomb barrier for p-Ni and p-Cu. Plus, you would have to get just the RIGHT number of neutrons in order to get the Cu-63 to Cu-65 ratio to match that which is found naturally in mined copper.

PhysicsProf	Re: New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters « Reply #20 on: 2011-11-26, 14:39:08 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 3017	OK, I've listened to the community's feedback and I'm making a big change in the “prizes” (post #1 above). I've sold one of the golden Eagles and a bunch of the silver Eagles and with that cash (remember its from my alt-energy-loving father) I'm going to support active novel-energy research. In fact, I've had proposals coming my way already and so It has begun. Here it is in a nutshell: 1. Turns out support is going to several places already, and I'm happy to send grants to Washington state, California, Phillipines, Utah, Oklahoma... 2. Grants are running around $300 or so and I wish I could do more. Perhaps someday... 3. One recipient emailed as follows: Quote Hi Steven, THANK YOU ! I must say, the belief you are showing in myself and in the community is a wonderful thing. We know there are undisclosed energy sources and we are finding them (perhaps for a second time or more in history)...so this is a quest to find, not only a hope of finding. Your generosity is greatly appreciated and I fully intend to upgrade, replace and enhance future experiments with the grant. 4. If you will send me a brief proposal of energy research you'd like to do (or are doing), and how you seek to help humanity with it – then I will consider it fairly and see what I can do. Send by December 10th please, and I'll reply a few days after that. Written -- great; or video or however you wish. 5. You may know someone who is perhaps too “shy” to send a request yet is deserving; let me know would you? 6. Let me provide an example of what I'm looking for – real experimental progress is much preferred over “theory” without prototype or model: http://merlib.org/node/6376 7. Les is really doing things, day by day, and is one of the first recipients of a Silver Eagle prize to encourage him – along with Slider (thanks for your work, too, Slider!). Both are very deserving and doing great experimental work, with an eye on serving humanity. I expect that more Silver Eagles will be given out (see first post for details). 8. There are many examples of diligent experimental work. I so appreciate the writings and/or videos of lidmotor, lasersaber, nul-pts, Armagdn03, xee2, itsu, Ouguide – and so many others. One more example-- that is very well done IMHO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY 9. Some would benefit from a humble $300 “no strings attached” bonus, evidently from the responses so far received, and so I'm glad to stretch the “prizes” as far as I can by turning them into “no-strings grants.” 10. Two Gold Eagles remain to provide a humble reward or rewards to measure-able OU, as specified in the first post in this thread. I will also do my best with available time to help this energetic community to get successful devices out to families world-wide (with a fair profit to inventors and builders) – and not to be squashed by globalist corporations or whatever. I'd like to do what I can to encourage the community to make a “final push to success” in the next few months. Together, we can do this. At the refining and prototyping stage, I expect many of us will chip in and also turn a fair return to essentially all contributors –with particular royalties, I expect, to the main inventor(s). Working together, we can both achieve novel energy and get these devices out to families and communities for the benefit of mankind. If you wish to write me, please use regular email or snail-mail as follows: 1. EMDevice12@yahoo.com OR 2. Steven E Jones PO Box 325 Spring City, UT 84662 USA A week ago, I had dinner with three very insightful energy researchers. A great time to be together and to share notes on our work -- and our play! It should be fun. I recall that Timothy said that he enjoyed the building and tinkering, but that he had not PRAYED for particular help in his energy research. He was going to do so. I also believe in prayer -- and IF you do, "Don't forget to pray.. " as the hymn says. BTW, my idea of fun for today is to join a Joule-Thief variant circuit, which converts DC to AC (and I've built a lot of them), to coupled LC circuits ... and take some measurements of input and output power. We'll see! Thanks, and best wishes to all.

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-27, 13:42:40

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2