Resonance follower and adapter

[DerStrom8]

Too many off-topic words in this post! Ahahahah! lol
If you don't believe that overunity is possible, why you're discussing with so much passion about it!?!

When was I discussing it with a passion? The only thing I said was that you cannot create or destroy energy, which means there is no such thing as overunity.

Make up your mind, is it overunity or "free" energy?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Nigel, you are contradicting yourself, you can't say that the golden rule is energy out = energy in and then say that air-condition doesn't follow the rule.
You can't have it both way.

Perhaps not written very well

But a heat pump takes in X electrical energy, and Y heat energy - but the actual A/C output is considerably less than X+Y - the usual losses of any machine apply.

 

[zahwi]

Perhaps not written very well

But a heat pump takes in X electrical energy, and Y heat energy - but the actual A/C output is considerably less than X+Y - the usual losses of any machine apply.

I knew what you meant even before you rephrased it. I also know that none of us disputes the rules of physics. The real sticky point is if this forum should allow discussing electrical circuitry when it is known that the circuit is for none pure science. The ultimate decision is for the moderators. Personally I'm with Ian's suggestion to let it run but if it gets out of hand to close it. If the discussion sticks to electronics then it can be some benefit.

 

[jpanhalt]

There is a concurrent thread on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/albert-and-general-relativity.146824/ ). I wonder whether the two should even be on the same Internet, much less the same forum.

John

 

[Fabrizio Ricciarelli]

When was I discussing it with a passion? The only thing I said was that you cannot create or destroy energy, which means there is no such thing as overunity.

Make up your mind, is it overunity or "free" energy?

Who said that overunity means "to create" energy? This is a common misunderstanding! And who said that free-energy is equal to overunity? Why do I have to make up my mind when are you that don't know the difference between the two words?
Overunity devices are transformers, from an original kind of energy to another one.
Free energy means that you can have energy for free, without the need to pay a bill to anyone so...an overunity device is able to transform an unlimited amount of "unknown type" of source energy, into an usable one (mainly electricity) allowing us to have energy for every common application without having to pay anyone, forever. Is it clearer now?
Want to know, at this point, what is the "unknown type" of source energy I'm speaking about? I could tell you but...you should have a much more open mind and a different, much more constructive approach to the scientific research! This is not pseudo-science, it's true science.

 

[DerStrom8]

Who said that overunity means "to create" energy? This is a common misunderstanding! And who said that free-energy is equal to overunity? Why do I have to make up my mind when are you that don't know the difference between the two words?
Overunity devices are transformers, from an original kind of energy to another one.

This is not correct. Overunity is synonymous with "perpetual motion", or "The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source." Just look at the root words that make up the term: "Over", which means more than, and "Unity", which means one. Overunity in this context, by definition, is where you get a ratio of energy in to energy out of higher than 1:1 (or 1). Over-Unity.

Simply converting from one type of energy to another is not over-unity.

Free energy means that you can have energy for free, without the need to pay a bill to anyone so...an overunity device is able to transform an unlimited amount of "unknown type" of source energy, into an usable one (mainly electricity) allowing us to have energy for every common application without having to pay anyone, forever. Is it clearer now?

"Overunity" is not the right word to use in the above sentence, based on the definition provided above. I have no problem with converting one type of energy to another--That's done on a daily basis in many different ways (Solar, wind, gas-powered automobiles, light bulbs, etc). But it is NOT "overunity". Overunity breaks the laws of physics, and thus is impossible. Converting energy from one type to another is not.

Want to know, at this point, what is the "unknown type" of source energy I'm speaking about? I could tell you but...you should have a much more open mind and a different, much more constructive approach to the scientific research! This is not pseudo-science, it's true science.

I honestly don't care what kind of energy you plan on converting. But if you expect anyone to help, you're going to have to provide more information. Otherwise you're on your own. Just keep in mind that there are losses, so you will lose energy on the output due to a portion of the energy being released in unusable forms.

It sounds to me like you're pursuing free energy, not overunity. I suggest remembering that for further posts. That is what got some people (myself included) going--Saying you're building an overunity device, when in fact you are building an energy conversion device, has caused confusion and since actual overunity is physically impossible, you were criticized. Hopefully that's been cleared up now.

 

[Fabrizio Ricciarelli]

This is not correct. Overunity is synonymous with "perpetual motion", or "The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source." Just look at the root words that make up the term: "Over", which means more than, and "Unity", which means one. Overunity in this context, by definition, is where you get a ratio of energy in to energy out of higher than 1:1 (or 1). Over-Unity.

Simply converting from one type of energy to another is not over-unity.



"Overunity" is not the right word to use in the above sentence, based on the definition provided above. I have no problem with converting one type of energy to another--That's done on a daily basis in many different ways (Solar, wind, gas-powered automobiles, light bulbs, etc). But it is NOT "overunity". Overunity breaks the laws of physics, and thus is impossible. Converting energy from one type to another is not.



I honestly don't care what kind of energy you plan on converting. But if you expect anyone to help, you're going to have to provide more information. Otherwise you're on your own. Just keep in mind that there are losses, so you will lose energy on the output due to a portion of the energy being released in unusable forms.

It sounds to me like you're pursuing free energy, not overunity. I suggest remembering that for further posts. That is what got some people (myself included) going--Saying you're building an overunity device, when in fact you are building an energy conversion device, has caused confusion and since actual overunity is physically impossible, you were criticized. Hopefully that's been cleared up now.

You're right in every of your statement! Unfortunately the common meaning of the two concepts, free-energy and overunity, has been interpreted in the wrong way by most people so, nowadays, that improper use of such words still continue to create confusion in the people's minds. From my side, I'm working on a device which transforms one type of energy into another one: it can be compared, for its tremendous ratio, to a nuclear chain reaction, but without the radiations.

Ah, and just for the chronicle, a closed system it the one that has a finite number of variables: in our nature, the real world, the number of variables is infinite so, due to our tremendous ignorance, we had to represent the known world with "finite" models, inventing the "closed" systems which are constantly revised and replaced by the new discoveries. The Science is a path in continuos evolution and is a starting point to make new discoveries, not their ends.

 

[Dr_Doggy]

not really, over-u and free-e are describing out>in to which there is no such thing, unless this is the parallel dimension to which such things do exist.

your description may transform but there is efficiency loss regardless of how little it is, and even if the input is measured in lumens and output in watts, there is still a maximum value of how much energy that light beam has. (it does not matter what form or from where it comes). In fact we cannot even use a transformer to convert energy to energy with out loss.

in that regard your solar panel is just a solar panel despite how efficient it is.
solar cells are not over-u, and def not free, you need to pay for material and installation.... and actually need to wait like 10yrs before your investment is even recovered, plus then you are at the half-life of the panel... also the sun will die too , so it's energy is not unlimited either.. or our universe for that matter.

just like finding a dollar is not free, its free for you(output) , but not free for the guy who lost it(input), and thats not counting the energy required to create that dollar from trees. If what you said was true then a ponzie scam is free energy too.

At any rate , the type of fruit(form of energy) is not important, and im sure we will discover lots more types, its how much juice you can squeeze out that is important.

I once asked questions similar to yours , and thats how i learned about power, efficiency, resonance and ringing, gear ratios, torque, force and most recently----- "Gibbs Free Energy" --- which i should mention is real , but not what we want it to be.

although T* & A* & B* exist , they cannot exist in your mouth at the same time....

 

[Fabrizio Ricciarelli]

So guys, is there anybody out there skilled enough, in electronic engineering, to produce a schematic which will accomplish my need?

That need, just to refresh your memories, is to vary a capacitance, or an inductance, in a coil that is fed by a constant frequency at 35 kHz.

This "variation" can be done by a dynamic, external, circuit (so independent from the main oscillating one, still in resonance) which can be put in between the load (a very variable one, inductive, resistive or capacitive) and the output of the "transformer/generator".

Once the load (a phone, a washing machine, a razor, a bulb, a motor or whatever else) is connected to the generator (through a standard wall plug) a sensing circuit (the one posted by me, based on the CD4046N IC) detects the variation in the resonance - which is unbalanced by the load - restoring it "simply" varying the resonance/capacitance, accordingly with the new parameters introduced by the load itself.

It's a funny challenge...

 

[tcmtech]

So do you have a working schematic, bill of materials and write up that explains how the at present 35 KHz based device works, IE what's going in and what's coming out and how it goes from one form of energy to the other, so that it can be replicated and confirmed by others?

Without that all you are going to get here is a load of grief leading to a closed thread.

 

[DerStrom8]

You're right in every of your statement! Unfortunately the common meaning of the two concepts, free-energy and overunity, has been interpreted in the wrong way by most people so, nowadays, that improper use of such words still continue to create confusion in the people's minds.

I agree, it is all semantics, but from a literal, scientifically and etymologically accurate point of view, "over-unity" is not the right word. I can see where it might seem like over-unity if you, physically, don't put much energy into a device and get something out, but by definition this really isn't a good description, which is what led to the confusion. It still gets its energy from somewhere.

not really, over-u and free-e are describing out>in to which there is no such thing, unless this is the parallel dimension to which such things do exist.

I suggest re-reading the last several posts. He is defining "free energy" as energy he doesn't need to pay for constantly, which certainly is possible.

 

[Fabrizio Ricciarelli]

So do you have a working schematic, bill of materials and write up that explains how the at present 35 KHz based device works, IE what's going in and what's coming out and how it goes from one form of energy to the other, so that it can be replicated and confirmed by others?

Without that all you are going to get here is a load of grief leading to a closed thread.

Yes tcmtech, I have everything you've listed.

It will be available to anyone, for free, once ready and tested by me or, alternatively, right now to those people who will demonstrate to deserve it.

To deserve it, simply, give as much help as you can, adequately to your knowledge/skills, in response to my requests.

In addition, if possible, demonstrate humbleness, as the big geniuses - like Nikola Tesla (and its numerous followers) - demonstrated, chosing to leave their discoveries to us, as a free gift.

 

[Fabrizio Ricciarelli]

not really, over-u and free-e are describing out>in to which there is no such thing, unless this is the parallel dimension to which such things do exist.

your description may transform but there is efficiency loss regardless of how little it is, and even if the input is measured in lumens and output in watts, there is still a maximum value of how much energy that light beam has. (it does not matter what form or from where it comes). In fact we cannot even use a transformer to convert energy to energy with out loss.

in that regard your solar panel is just a solar panel despite how efficient it is.
solar cells are not over-u, and def not free, you need to pay for material and installation.... and actually need to wait like 10yrs before your investment is even recovered, plus then you are at the half-life of the panel... also the sun will die too , so it's energy is not unlimited either.. or our universe for that matter.

just like finding a dollar is not free, its free for you(output) , but not free for the guy who lost it(input), and thats not counting the energy required to create that dollar from trees. If what you said was true then a ponzie scam is free energy too.

At any rate , the type of fruit(form of energy) is not important, and im sure we will discover lots more types, its how much juice you can squeeze out that is important.

I once asked questions similar to yours , and thats how i learned about power, efficiency, resonance and ringing, gear ratios, torque, force and most recently----- "Gibbs Free Energy" --- which i should mention is real , but not what we want it to be.

although T* & A* & B* exist , they cannot exist in your mouth at the same time....

Hey DR_Doggy, in some way you hit the target speaking about a parallel dimension...it's only a bit different from the one we all knew through the sci-fi.

In few, simple words, there is a big "negative" energy source all around us, which is kept in balance by its counterpart, the "positive" one.

We are used to manage only the positive one (our electronic circuits operate mainly in such positive domain: forget that the "ground" is "negative"), and only sometimes we see the effects of the negative one due to its fast (at the speed of light) reaction to our stimulus, mainly done on the positive side of this huge universal force.

This universe is in equilibrium/balance thanks to these two opposite forces, which operates constantly to replenish the energy "holes" made in their counterpart.

Tesla discovered that giving a "kick" to a coil, with the correct frequency and waveform, the feedback was higher than the one injected; going further with his research, he discovered that there is a "portal", a link between two worlds, which can be crossed through a spark.

A spark creates a fluctuation in the time/space, a "rupture" in the invisible tissue which separates the two energetic domains.

This story is very, very long so, for the moment, you just have to settle for knowing that, putting in resonance both sides of a coil (with adequate measures, ratios, materials) and creating a spark (mandatory), you open that "portal" and take access to an infinite ocean of energy (words of Mr.Tesla); at this point you have, with humble, to dose the energy you're taking and transform it in electricity.

What do you think the Tesla's coil has been invented for? It's a transformer, from the "negative" world to the "positive" one. That coil was not intended to be a toy for producing spectacular sparks....

Of course you can think this is a children's tale, someone else can think that this is pseudo-science or Sci-Fi.

Think what you want, my spirit is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as Voltaire said.

 

[DerStrom8]

Hey DR_Doggy, in some way you hit the target speaking about a parallel dimension...it's only a bit different from the one we all knew through the sci-fi.

In few, simple words, there is a big "negative" energy source all around us, which is kept in balance by its counterpart, the "positive" one.

We are used to manage only the positive one (our electronic circuits operate mainly in such positive domain: forget that the "ground" is "negative"), and only sometimes we see the effects of the negative one due to its fast (at the speed of light) reaction to our stimulus, mainly done on the positive side of this huge universal force.

This universe is in equilibrium/balance thanks to these two opposite forces, which operates constantly to replenish the energy "holes" made in their counterpart.

Tesla discovered that giving a "kick" to a coil, with the correct frequency and waveform, the feedback was higher than the one injected; going further with his research, he discovered that there is a "portal", a link between two worlds, which can be crossed through a spark.

A spark creates a fluctuation in the time/space, a "rupture" in the invisible tissue which separates the two energetic domains.

This story is very, very long so, for the moment, you just have to settle for knowing that, putting in resonance both sides of a coil (with adequate measures, ratios, materials) and creating a spark (mandatory), you open that "portal" and take access to an infinite ocean of energy (words of Mr.Tesla); at this point you have, with humble, to dose the energy you're taking and transform it in electricity.

What do you think the Tesla's coil has been invented for? It's a transformer, from the "negative" world to the "positive" one. That coil was not intended to be a toy for producing spectacular sparks....

Of course you can think this is a children's tale, someone else can think that this is pseudo-science or Sci-Fi.

Think what you want, my spirit is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as Voltaire said.

Ok, now you've gone too far. If you were truly a scientist you would realize how stupid that jargon you just rattled off is. What kind of scientist are you, exactly? What is your actual profession?

Tesla discovered that giving a "kick" to a coil, with the correct frequency and waveform, the feedback was higher than the one injected

False. Saying that Tesla discovered that "kicking" a coil just right would give you more energy than you put in is downright ridiculous and insulting. Tesla knew that the laws of physics could not be broken. Tesla designed his coil based on the idea of resonance, that if you energize a coil just right at its resonant frequency using the primary coil and a capacitor, you can induce current in the secondary much more efficiently (less energy is wasted as heat or mechanical vibration). When matched perfectly, you get constructive interference on the secondary coil caused by the "kick" from the primary coil. This causes each voltage to "add up", so to speak, thus increasing the voltage on the secondary. It is sometimes described as a wave "ringing" up the secondary coil, and then back down again, at which point the primary coil sends another "burst" of energy into the secondary which adds to this waveform. In case you aren't familiar, here's an animation demonstrating constructive interference of waves:


Think of it as pushing a child on a swing. You push him once and he goes to a certain height. When he swings back, if you apply the same amount of force as before but at just the right time, it will add to his momentum, sending him a little higher. This is why the turns ratio of the primary coil turns to the secondary coil turns does not directly correspond to the voltage output--It is a resonant transformer, unlike standard electrical transformers with iron cores. Tesla knew that the resonance is what caused the voltage increase on the secondary, and that he was not getting out any more energy than he put in. The voltage was higher, but the current was lower since P = V * I, and Pout = Pin.

Tesla did not design his coil as a toy, nor as a means of "connecting one world to another". His goal was to send wireless electricity (as well as radio and other types of signals) through the atmosphere so that it could be tapped into from anywhere in the world. The "sparks" were merely a side effect, which Tesla himself saw as a horrible downfall--They were wasted energy. His dream was to provide "free electricity" (meaning nobody would have to pay money for it) to the world. His investors, however, upon discovering that they would not make a profit on his idea, pulled his funding.

The "positive energy and negative energy" worlds is still just theory, and you cannot pass it off as science. Science is proven, and you cannot really prove anything that you said in your last post. And using Tesla to back up these claims and misusing his research is insulting to those actually committed to science, and I'm sure would even insult Tesla himself if he were still around today.

I suggest you do some more reading on Tesla before mentioning him in another post. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, or who he was. No offense, but you're sounding more and more like a fool by misquoting and misusing his research.

Let's keep to strictly scientific discussions from now on. No more of this "other dimension" talk--It is not a reliable source to quote since it is still unproven, and probably will remain so. Any more of this pseudo-science or unproven theory and you'll risk moderation or even the closing of the thread. Please keep in mind the rules:

Controversial topics such as:

• politics,
• religion,
• politically biased science,
• climate change,
• over-unity/free energy,
• conspiracy theories,
• space alien abduction,

are not necessarily off limits.

However, unless you can provide scientific proof or evidence, we do not recommend pushing these topics on others.

 

[tcmtech]

Yes tcmtech, I have everything you've listed.

It will be available to anyone, for free, once ready and tested by me or, alternatively, right now to those people who will demonstrate to deserve it.

To deserve it, simply, give as much help as you can, adequately to your knowledge/skills, in response to my requests.

So basically you don't have an actual working device?

If so fair enough. I tend to play nice through most of these types of threads all the way to their end.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Utterly pointless and unsuitable thread closed - moderator.