PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > PhysicsProf (Moderator: PhysicsProf) > Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from?
2024-11-28, 02:45:29
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from?  (Read 35403 times)
Topic Options img
img  PhysicsProf
Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « on: 2012-12-13, 21:16:06 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
OK, fast forward to the latest JT-type circuit, below.
It charges a battery (NOT just battery recovery chemistry going on)  AND simultaneously runs a load,
thus appears to be a self-runner.  Replicated.

Still undergoing tests -- where is the apparent "excess energy" coming from?  we don't know yet, but certainly not claiming a "violation of the laws of physics".

Yes, it is a "Joule-thief" type of circuit.

 A novel or a prosaic source of energy ?  we don't know yet; tests are underway.

http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.255
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #1 on: 2012-12-13, 23:49:09 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-12-13, 21:16:06
OK, fast forward to the latest JT-type circuit, below.
It charges a battery (NOT just battery recovery chemistry going on)  AND simultaneously runs a load,
thus appears to be a self-runner.  Replicated.

Still undergoing tests -- where is the apparent "excess energy" coming from?  we don't know yet, but certainly not claiming a "violation of the laws of physics".

Yes, it is a "Joule-thief" type of circuit.

A novel or a prosaic source of energy ?  we don't know yet; tests are underway.

http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.255


Dear Prof. Jones,

Sorry that the Company politics stopped me from sending you an oscilloscope-test-ready board.  You can go to my bench in here to get the full information.  Note the nov 22a.xls and the magic.xls files in particular.  They clearly showed that adding a 2.3V 10F capacitor in parallel with the DC power supply will give you overunity results as seen on your Atten Oscilloscope.  When you take away the DC power supply, the frequency of the Output Voltage will increase.  At a certain frequency range, the Output Power is clearly greater than the Input Power.

Three teams (G-LED, BSI and HSIF) have found ways to stay at this frequency range independently.  All three can produce Forever Lighted Lamps.  You should have no trouble reproducing the same.

God Bless and Merry Christmas,

Lawrence
   
img  muDped
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #2 on: 2012-12-13, 23:57:52 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Thanks for providing a schematic diagram of
the circuit arrangement.  Its layout is a bit
unorthodox which makes it difficult to analyze
circuit operation.  I've redrawn it in more
conventional positioning of the components
to aid comprehension but what is yet lacking
is the polarity of the Yellow LED and the phasing
of the transformer windings.  The phasing can
be deduced, however, from the transistor
connections.

It is easy to see how transistor burnout can
be achieved.  With just some small modifications
it could be made less likely.

It also appears that the circuit could be made
operational with just a single transistor since
the primary function of the 2N2222 is to boost
feedback current to the 2N4401 switch.

Switching of the 2N4401 "off" would be relatively
slow in this arrangement yet that may be a desirable
characteristic.

There isn't any obvious means of feeding significant
energy back into the power cells from the output
of the circuit.
- - - - - - - - - -

Lawrence, thank you for the hints - they're very
helpful.

Best wishes to you and yours as well!


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #3 on: 2012-12-14, 00:15:04 »
Group: Guest
What is the amount of extra energy claimed ?
Maybe two sources of very small amounts of energy would be the ground noise and RF radiation picked up by the antenna.
Not difficult to do in small amounts. An LED can be lit by subjecting it to ground noise or touching it to a HF circuit by one terminal.
A self runner wouldn't need batteries and they should be able to be switched out or removed. Is there wave forms ?

Cheers
   
img  BEP
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #4 on: 2012-12-14, 00:33:30 »
Group: Guest
Basically, this is a simple radio detector driving a one-stage amplifier with feedback.

The energy source is all nearby radio and TV transmitters from hundreds of kilohertz to near VHF. If he places it and the antenna in a truly effective Faraday cage it will run down.

 
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #5 on: 2012-12-14, 11:33:50 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-12-13, 21:16:06
...
where is the apparent "excess energy" coming from?
...

This question prematurely presumes that "excess energy" is a fact. For instance, if hertzian waves from a near radio transmitter were the energy source, then the excess energy would not appear in all circumstances (surely not in a good Faraday cage), and so the duplicability would be uncertain, depending on the location.

Therefore to not distort the debate, the first question to ask is: is the excess energy confirmed?

Among the experimenters here: is there somebody who can confirm it's works and present his measurement protocol and data?
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #6 on: 2012-12-14, 11:46:22 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012-12-14, 00:33:30
Basically, this is a simple radio detector driving a one-stage amplifier with feedback.

The energy source is all nearby radio and TV transmitters from hundreds of kilohertz to near VHF. If he places it and the antenna in a truly effective Faraday cage it will run down.


I agree. It's a possible explanation. Another one is a pre-charge of the capacitor. The number of turns of the primary coil is low, so the involved frequencies are surely some Khz, tens of Khz or even hundreds. At these frequencies, a 1-10µF capacitor would be by far enough to smooth the voltage and current, question of time constants. Therefore why a 4700µF?! It smells the incompetence or the manipulation.
   
img  ion
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #7 on: 2012-12-14, 13:59:09 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Dumped:

Can you post your redrawn schematic?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  muDped
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #8 on: 2012-12-15, 03:56:27 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Quote from: ION
Can you post your redrawn schematic?

Aye, can do.  Sorry it took so long.

I had a learning curve to get in place
using Xsane to scan the image in
Puppy Linux.  Heretofore I'd used
Windoze and it is great to be nearly
Windows Free!


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #9 on: 2012-12-15, 04:58:07 »
Group: Guest
That's a much better drawing to understand, just my way of thinking but isn't this mr cleans darlington pair oscillator, the oscillation are fed back from the ground connection to trigger the transistor.
Just with an antenna added to the positive rail. I'm not sure I would want an antenna there, or if it would do anything but expose me to lightning.  :o

There is a giveaway when he says that the LED lights up when he touches it or the circuit, this indicates it may be lit by HF noise or even by the energy conveyed to his body by the AC grid capacitivley maybe
pretty much connecting his circuit to the grid. Any number of strange things could happen but it's all just curiosity unless the amount of energy is worthwhile, I mean I can light lot's of LEDs with next to no power.

OU is about the energy, not the effects that can be produced by just increased efficiency or other inputs.

I think the search for OU is about finding a significant gain in energy utilized compared to energy applied by us, but with no one being able to explain where it is or might be coming from.
A significant amount to me depends on the applied energy, but also there is a low limit where below it no conclusion can be made with our equipment. Which means it also depends on the equipment and how it is used.

Cheers

« Last Edit: 2012-12-15, 05:52:01 by Farmhand »
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #10 on: 2012-12-15, 05:58:54 »
Group: Guest
That is not to say that extreme efficiency is not interesting in itself, it is very much so, but extreme efficiency is not over unity in itself.
If one were to find an OU device then the efficiency may or may not be an issue to getting it, eg. if we had no idea where the energy
came from to make our solar panels work, we could call it OU. It's efficiency cannot be determined unless the energy source is identified and quantified,
then Over Unity it is not, because it is explained. It makes no difference that a solar panel is less than 20% efficient because it is all free anyway.
In the big scheme of things there is no waste because energy cannot be destroyed, if we never had control of the 80% of energy considered "losses"
in a solar panel then doesn't that make the solar panel 100 % efficient except for the heat ect. losses involved in the utilized energy it does harness.

The efficiency is relevant to the parameters and/or conditions applied to the evaluation.

Cheers

P.S. Even people who are so called "scientific" can sometimes be very unscientific when thinking in terms of what best suits their point of view or their agenda.

Going overboard with the calculus or the "scientific method" is less than ideal if the evaluation does not tell us the relevant data.

..
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #11 on: 2012-12-15, 11:48:36 »
Group: Guest
While people who are involved in the energy field and don't call themselves "scientific" will not have provided a technology at least as useful as this that the scientists provided, their duty should be to work for and to shut up until they succeed.    >:(
   
img  Farmhand
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #12 on: 2012-12-15, 13:35:42 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012-12-15, 11:48:36
While people who are involved in the energy field and don't call themselves "scientific" will not have provided a technology at least as useful as this that the scientists provided, their duty should be to work for and to shut up until they succeed.    >:(



Well you can't be referring to me because I do call myself "scientific". But for arguments sake if you were referring to me, then
I would say I have produced technology at least as useful as this or even more useful.
Just because you may not be aware of it or consider it as such does not make it non existent.

I was just saying that there is no point to overdoing the "scientific method" if the scope of the evaluation is not relevant the purpose of the evaluation.

I don't know about anyone else but I work for no one and I will speak when I please unless I offend someone unduly.
Then I would apologize. But I would still have spoken.

Cheers

P.S. I may be reading it wrong, and if so, I do apologize. But to me it seems you were more or less telling me to shut up if I don't consider myself scientific.
I didn't say I wasn't scientific.   ???

2nd P.S. And just in case you were unsure, yes you are one of the people who I think overdo the scientific method when there is no real call for it.
But that is just my opinion and if it offends you for me to comment on that then I will apologize.
Considering some of your own comments on things I don't see why you should be offended.

..

« Last Edit: 2012-12-15, 14:01:03 by Farmhand »
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #13 on: 2012-12-15, 17:38:45 »
Group: Guest
@fh

Thanks for your clear reply. Sorry for my sharp response.

My message is: to present the circuit in question as a possible overunity device is an insult to intelligence and to all electronics engineers, technicians, and even hobbyists who play with such circuits for decades, and a fortiori an insult to the scientists.
Now it is so simple that everybody who supports the idea of OU in this device, without having himself built it, has no excuse. It seems that nobody here is convinced, and so, that we can close this void case that should have not even been open.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #14 on: 2012-12-15, 18:49:34 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
While people who are involved in the energy field and don't call themselves "scientific" will not have provided a technology at least as useful as this that the scientists provided, their duty should be to work for and to shut up until they succeed.

I believe you are incorrect.
Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Scientist- A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

You may notice that nowhere will you find that any scientists has ever produced one single practical device or technology because if they had they would not be a scientist who simply studies things but an inventor who actually builds things.

INVENTOR- A person who invents, to produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.

It seems obvious that if everyone simply studied everything but never actually did anything with the knowledge from all they're studies then nothing would ever get done, that is the job of the inventor not the scientist and what you suggest is an insult to every person who has ever invented or discovered anything ... scientific or not.

AC
« Last Edit: 2012-12-15, 19:34:02 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  ion
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #15 on: 2012-12-15, 19:00:00 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Dumped:

Thanks for the redraw.

It is clear from your well drawn schematic that you have been around electronics a long time and have lots of experience.

One clearly drawn schematic conveys more info and dispels more hype than the thousands of words and hot air blown around forums.

It is now very obvious what this is.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #16 on: 2012-12-15, 19:25:00 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Farmhand
Quote
I think the search for OU is about finding a significant gain in energy utilized compared to energy applied by us, but with no one being able to explain where it is or might be coming from.
A significant amount to me depends on the applied energy, but also there is a low limit where below it no conclusion can be made with our equipment. Which means it also depends on the equipment and how it is used.

It may be of interest that a great deal of R&D money is not being spent on thinking big but rather thinking very small on the nanoscale. Consider what might happen if we utilized a simple crystal radio circuit and printed a billion or so of them on something the size of a small flexible postage stamp and had each one tuned to a different frequency, now we have one billion EM recievers extracting energy from a very very large spectrum. Then we use nano-wires as antenna having the surface area of a few football fields in the volume of another postage stamp.... are you getting the picture?. At this point what do we have?, well we could literally have a "material" which could even be a fabric we wear which absorbs very large portions of the ambient EM energy spectrum which amounts to tangible amounts of energy.

There has always been plenty of energy everywhere however what was lacking was a means to get at it efficiently and many think nano-technology will get us there.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #17 on: 2012-12-16, 15:38:36 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012-12-15, 18:49:34
@Exn
I believe you are incorrect.
Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Scientist- A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

You may notice that nowhere will you find that any scientists has ever produced one single practical device or technology because if they had they would not be a scientist who simply studies things but an inventor who actually builds things.
...

As a first step the question is not to produce a practical device, but to produce something that works or at least a reproducible new effect.

When Oersted shown that a current in a wire could deviate the compass needle, he demonstrated that a current can exert a mechanical force. Then the "invention" of a motor was obvious for everybody... Less than 10 years after, the industry built motors. A single year would be necessary today, as things go much faster.

The adepts and theorists of "overunity" or "free energy" have not yet demonstrate the least slight real effet of something new having a promising technology behind, except (not yet sure 100%), the scientists around LENR, including Rossi.
So your objection can't be accepted.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #18 on: 2012-12-17, 01:28:06 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
When Oersted shown that a current in a wire could deviate the compass needle, he demonstrated that a current can exert a mechanical force. Then the "invention" of a motor was obvious for everybody... Less than 10 years after, the industry built motors. A single year would be necessary today, as things go much faster.

I believe that is what I was saying, scientists have never built or invented anything practical or not. They simply study natural phenomena and document what they found through their studies then let the people who actually build real devices , inventors, do what they do best which is build real practical devices which help make peoples lives better.

Quote
The adepts and theorists of "overunity" or "free energy" have not yet demonstrate the least slight real effet of something new having a promising technology behind, except (not yet sure 100%), the scientists around LENR, including Rossi.


I believe you mean that you have never seen a working device, there are cases such as T.H.Moray and the Hendershot device where many demonstrations before credible experts were performed. However the consensus from the experts was that they had no idea how it worked or why it worked, in fact they said they did not even know where to start looking for an answer. One comical statement concerning the Hendershot device was made by a Dr.Pupin who had impeccable credentials and declared that the device could not be real simply because he could not understand it. Hmm so everything he does not understand cannot be real which must mean the reality of everyone and everything in the universe must be based on his singular understanding, wouldn't that make him a God?. Sounds a little too fanatical for my taste ,he must have fallen down a rabbit hole and bumped his head.


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  forest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #19 on: 2012-12-17, 09:52:38 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
allcanadian

I agree 100% with your conclusion. Free energy is quite simple but those who are in power don't want this knowledge to leak into public  because the one requirement is that it has to be used in place at small amounts, for every man on this planet.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #20 on: 2012-12-17, 14:07:57 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012-12-17, 01:28:06
@Exn
I believe that is what I was saying, scientists have never built or invented anything practical or not. They simply study natural phenomena and document what they found through their studies then let the people who actually build real devices , inventors, do what they do best which is build real practical devices which help make peoples lives better.

Who is the inventor of the electric motor? This one who demonstrates that a current can exert a mechanical force, or this one who build something using the now known fact that a current can exert a mechanical force? Obviously the former. A scientist invented the electrical motor. A current making a needle to turn is an electric motor. The fact that the invention is useful or not has nothing to do with the invention process, don't confuse invention and patent, and that is even more true considering that a first invention is often only a proof of concept with no practical application without further improvements, but with plenty of useful applications after.

My second point is that inventors in matter of free energy don't exist ("pseudo-inventors" is a more exact term), neither as pioneers of a new effect like this shown by Oersted, nor as creators of a useful device. Everybody fails for decades in trying to duplicate extravagant devices from pseudo-inventors because these devices simply don't work. But we can duplicate most of the inventions from Tesla or Edison. No mystery, on one side there are unskilled, crazy or dishonnest people and on the other side there are skilled, rational and honnest people.

Quote
I believe you mean that you have never seen a working device, there are cases such as T.H.Moray and the Hendershot device where many demonstrations before credible experts were performed.
...

Urban legend.
"Credible experts" are doubtful until there is a third party duplication. Only an independent replication by an independent team can be a proof. Most of Tesla's inventions can be duplicated and have been duplicated because they were real inventions with real effects. Moray or Hendershot are not Tesla.

   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #21 on: 2012-12-17, 14:17:25 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: forest on 2012-12-17, 09:52:38
allcanadian

I agree 100% with your conclusion. Free energy is quite simple but those who are in power don't want this knowledge to leak into public  because the one requirement is that it has to be used in place at small amounts, for every man on this planet.

Terrible conspiracy!  Not one invention went through!     ;D ;D ;D
Ask help to Santa Claus.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #22 on: 2012-12-18, 05:26:33 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Exn
Quote
Who is the inventor of the electric motor? This one who demonstrates that a current can exert a mechanical force, or this one who build something using the now known fact that a current can exert a mechanical force? Obviously the former. A scientist invented the electrical motor. A current making a needle to turn is an electric motor.

Hmm let me get this straight a scientist proves that a current in a wire can exert a mechanical force so this means he invented the electric motor. If we want to use this twisted logic then we may as well say he invented everything in the last 100 years that utilizes a current to exert a mechanical force, your point is so biased it verges on fanaticism.

Quote
My second point is that inventors in matter of free energy don't exist ("pseudo-inventors" is a more exact term), neither as pioneers of a new effect like this shown by Oersted, nor as creators of a useful device. Everybody fails for decades in trying to duplicate extravagant devices from pseudo-inventors because these devices simply don't work. But we can duplicate most of the inventions from Tesla or Edison. No mystery, on one side there are unskilled, crazy or dishonnest people and on the other side there are skilled, rational and honnest people.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/ScientistsFalsifyResearchResults.htm
Scientists Invent Results:Times Online (June 4, 2009) headline reports that “One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data.” That figure applies to serious breaches of “acceptable conduct by inventing results.” The article went on to say that “46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in ‘questionable practices’, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”

http://phys.org/news162795064.html
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html


I could post a couple hundred more examples of scientists exhibiting almost criminal behavior if you would like, really Exn you seem to constantly make up stories which are complete bullshit and then think people will believe it because you use a few fancy words. Your fancy words do not impress me much and you are as extreme if not moreso than the people you criticize.
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  muDped
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #23 on: 2012-12-18, 06:29:28 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Aye, 'tis very true AC.

No institution is exempt from the influences
of corruption and deception.  The honest men
and women within the institutions who insist
upon truth at every step are overwhelmed by
the power of bought "leadership."

Corruption is like cream, it rises to the top of
any power structure...


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  Centraflow
Re: Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from? « Reply #24 on: 2013-01-02, 16:09:28 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2982


Buy me a beer
Your redraw is wrong at the transformer, original is a ? and not 7 turns, this was a CFL choke so would be high turns ratio :) and not 1:1


Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 02:45:29