 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / CAD / February 2008Come Cross Test Circuit Theory in Simulation, Over Unity Circuit
How it works is a long lecture and discussion in detail. Since, I've already started the discussion on another BBS and will not keep any secrets or hide any schematics, I'm callenging all of you and the pros. This over Unity Device Really will work. Join the discussion. http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?s=bb7cc215d317e9e36f2cda1ec52 97c8b;act=ST;f=10;t=33309396 > How it works is a long lecture and discussion in detail. Since, I've > already started the discussion on another BBS and will not keep any > secrets or hide any schematics, I'm callenging all of you and the > pros. This over Unity Device Really will work. Join the discussion. > > http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?s=bb7cc215d317e9e36f2cda1ec52 97c8b;act=ST;f=10;t=33309396 There is no need for discussion, you are mistaken. As to your simulator proofs, simulators make tons of assumptions about reality. There are holes the size of a football field in most of those assumptions. When an engineer uses a simulator, he does so with an understanding of the limitations of the underlying models, or he gets garbage for his results. -Chuck >How it works is a long lecture and discussion in detail. Since, I've >already started the discussion on another BBS and will not keep any >secrets or hide any schematics, I'm callenging all of you and the >pros. This over Unity Device Really will work. Join the discussion. > >http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?s=bb7cc215d317e9e36f2cda1ec52 97c8b;act=ST;f=10;t=33309396 Over Unity == Under Educated But what do you expect from someone who posts via Googlegroups ?:-) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave > How it works is a long lecture and discussion in detail. Since, I've > already started the discussion on another BBS and will not keep any > secrets or hide any schematics, I'm callenging all of you and the > pros. This over Unity Device Really will work. Join the discussion. > > http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?s=bb7cc215d317e9e36f2cda1ec52 97c8b;act=ST;f=10;t=33309396 Hello, Have you ever heard of reactive power? In your circuit energy is only exchanged between capacitors and inductors. I will tell you now how to measure power with LTspice. Run your example stage1.asc. Press the Alt-key and keep it pressed. Move the cursor over the output capacitor C1. It will change to a thermometer. Click the left mouse button. Now the power in this capacitor will be plotted. V(N003)*I(C1) It's roughly +/-1kVA. Watch it's plus and minus! Activate the plot window. Press the Ctrl-key and keep it pressed. Click with the left mouse button on the plot label V(N003)*I(C1) A small dialog will appear: Average 3W This is the average power dissipation in the capacitor. There is nowhere 1kW power dissipation in this circuit. There are only a few Watts in the componenents due to their specified series resistance. The sum of all the losses in the components is the same as the power delivered from V1. It's simply a proof of power conservation as known since hundred(s) of years. Best regards, Helmut >How it works is a long lecture and discussion in detail. Since, I've >already started the discussion on another BBS and will not keep any >secrets or hide any schematics, I'm callenging all of you and the >pros. This over Unity Device Really will work. Join the discussion. > >http://boards.startrek.com/community/messages.html?s=bb7cc215d317e9e36f2cda1ec52 97c8b;act=ST;f=10;t=33309396 I suggest you learn about power factor. Try find "A Course in Electrical Engineering, Volume II, Alternating Currents"; Dawes, Chester; McGraw-Hill; 1947. It has chapters of wonderful information that modern books don't cover about power factor and how to measure power. Hey Jim T., did you know Arthur Casey or Jordan Miller back in MIT? My copy of the above book was used by them back in the late 1950s. Book was only $4.90 (used) back then. --- Mark >>How it works is a long lecture and discussion in detail. Since, I've >>already started the discussion on another BBS and will not keep any [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >--- >Mark Nope. My "core curriculum" was... Fields: Fano/Chu/Adler and permutations thereof. Circuits: Notes (no books) by H.B.Lee and Melcher; and books by Zimmerman/Mason and permutations thereof. Machinery/Energy Conversion: White/Woodson and Woodson/White ;-) Calculus: Thomas (who else ?) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave >Machinery/Energy Conversion: White/Woodson and Woodson/White ;-) I had Woodson for 6.06. That was back in '64 or '65. It was one of the most enjoyable courses I've ever taken. Steve and I were getting to his office at 9AM on Friday morning to get our homework back. (Neither of us were morning people, but it was worth it.) It usually took 5 or 10 minutes to go over our homework. Then for the rest of the hour, we stood at the whiteboard and he would toss problems at us. They were all easy after you saw how to do it. As soon as we got one, he'd toss us another. It was a lot of work, but a lot of fun.  SignatureThese are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam. >>Machinery/Energy Conversion: White/Woodson and Woodson/White ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >after you saw how to do it. As soon as we got one, he'd toss us >another. It was a lot of work, but a lot of fun. I teched in Woodson's MHD lab from '59-'62. Woodson was a really nice guy. Used to go to his house for BBQ. Prof. Jackson was my thesis adviser. Jim Melcher was a grad student, working on his PhD under Woodson, at the time and was teaching one of the active circuits courses as well... don't remember the course number, but it was the course where I was the only one in the class to get the start-up limit cycle right for a tube oscillator.... after being graded the only one wrong, I convinced Melcher I was right ;-) Melcher went on to become head of the EE Department, but died young of colon cancer, just like my youngest son :-( ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave >>> Machinery/Energy Conversion: White/Woodson and Woodson/White ;-) >> I had Woodson for 6.06. That was back in '64 or '65. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Melcher went on to become head of the EE Department, but died young of > colon cancer, just like my youngest son :-( I had Melcher for 6.014 (6.04) and 6.601 in the mid '70s. He was by far the best teacher I ever had, though I had other good ones. He understood the material so well that, rather than missing the point of a student's question, as is common, he could put two examples on the board illustrating the student's confusion and the correct way to view the problem. It was a shame he died so young. One of my favorite texts is "Electromechanical Dynamics, Pt I", by Woodson and Melcher. Appendix B has the clearest review of E+M that I have ever seen, and in only 38 pages. I don't know if it was Woodson or Melcher that wrote that part, but I am sure that Melcher could have. SignatureNOTE: to reply, remove all punctuation from email name field Ned Forrester n_f_orrester@whoi.edu 508-289-2226 Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Dept. Oceanographic Systems Lab http://adcp.whoi.edu/ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA Somewhere you guys missed the point. Any piece of wire can be replaced by plasma. So, if there 2KW here or there and a piece of wire completes the circuit, a plasma could replace it. Sure, that energy is there and bucking around and hardly anything you can tap into, in most cases. But, a plasma when it's hot enough, will conduct as well or better than a piece of wire. The whole trick is keeping the plasma hot enough between cycles, and the only real way to that in the radio frequency ranges, around 1MHz and up. One guy looked at the simulation models, and he gave a confused answer. I went to college too, and I got ahead, and then I would fall behind and then catch right up again. Here's what happened, I kept running simulations of this circuit, then bringing in hand wound toroids and other coils to duplicate the simulations and see if I was in reality. The power is there, and yes I've loaded it up and found out things about transformers that I never knew, until then. What I learned was not in the books. The circuit is connected from component to component by wire. Between any coil and capacitor in parallel, replace 1 piece of wire with a plasma tube and you can have 13KW of heat. I updated that zip file name Proof.zip and there's a circuit that achieves 13KW from I think it was 30W, and if you ignite a plasma, it's all usable as heat. Some parts of the circuit consits of parts you cannot buy but must construct yourself. Otherwise, there is no power to use. For all intensive purposes, there is a big difference in using Toroids over Bobbin Wound Transformers. A bililar winding will pretty well be locked in at whatever inductance value primary verses secondary. Using an E core, and two bobbins the coils magnetize the core and the core passes the magnetic lines through the secondary. An iron core Microwave transformer I have that's bobbin wound, has a primary inductance of 68.2mH on the primary when the secondary is open. When I short the secondary and measure the inductance of the primary again, then the meter only reads 13.02mH. The inverse is also true, when the primary is open the secondary reads 15.5H, and when the primary is shorted the secondary reads, 3.375H. In a circuit, this is where that makes a difference. XL = XC at the resonant frequency. Z=1/((1/Q + LC)) Where Q is the Q of the inductor at the resonant frequency. Z must be greater than the output impedance of the previous transformer. Everything is fine using toroids up to the last transformer stage. But, the primary of a bobbin wound transformer reads the load on the secondary as a change in the primary's inductance. So, two seperate windings on seperate bobbins on either an E core or a C core should solve the problem. Then you can calculate XL and find XC at the same operating frequency of the circuit. The speed of magnetization of a material bobbin windings, from top of the core to bottom in an E core, or from left to right in a C core, verses bifilar windings on a toroid, and the speed of magnetization of material under the conductors at a very short distance. An E core or a C core will follow generator physics and a bobbin core will be inductively coupled and pretty well winding A will be locked at the initial inductance value A no matter what the load on the secondary. Wind one coil at the bottom of the C core, wind a second C core the same way. Put them together by placing copper water pipe as sleeves to join the two cores. The copper acts like a short circuit where an inductor is always an inductor. It's a short circuit for a transformer but the induced magnetic field will be there as Kick EMF. So, north will face North and south will face south at either end of the joined C cores. That doesn't stop the magnetic field it reverses it. Then all you need to do is use the force or some force to hold the two cores together. > Somewhere you guys missed the point. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only real way to that in the radio frequency ranges, around 1MHz and > up. Nobody, save for you, has missed the point. For me, it all comes down to this: How come you aren't richer than Bill Gates? If you really have an "over-unity" device that you can construct, and prove, billions of dollars would come marching to your door. Yes, I know, you are doing all of this out of the goodness of your heart, and you don't want the money because it would some how make you less pure. Takes money to make money, that's always the rule. It doesn't take any money to know how, it takes money for patent attorney's, patent rights, and concept patents don't pay unless some-one wants the idea. When you think about how sceptical you are, and then consider how many sceptics there really are, it's a hopeless situation. Sure, cons make a point but they invest in fraud. I provide schematics, ain't looking for investors, destroyed the potential of any concept patent with making theory public access, and prevented any monopoly. That only leaves device patents, and anything I invent could use that circuit. If you really study patent law, you'll find that electronic circuits are not protected. Why? Simple enough, a circuit is usually buried under a list of other simple circuits, and in the end preforms a seperate or different task. How many ways you can assemble a circuit to accomplish the same task is like comparing the Blackberry to text messaging and cell phones. There isn't a real difference. Tuned to another frequency than the original proof and that's proof enough that it's not the same circuit in court. The major companies are all picking up radios, televisions and none of them are arguing so often. An attorney is trained in law, not electronics. If you look deeply, there are a few who will take your money to protect your circuits, but they really can't. Electronics is right up there with chemical compounds, and that which an attorney cannot understand nor identify is not truely protected. Some of the transformers I've mentioned are only experimental and are versions I have not tested. > Takes money to make money, that's always the rule. It doesn't take > any money to know how, it takes money for patent attorney's, patent [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Some of the transformers I've mentioned are only experimental and are > versions I have not tested. You are balmy mate! Oh, and try quoting some of the text from the article you are responding to so folks can figure out what you are talking about. If your basic principles worked, you would be able to cheap together a model, and show me a shoebox with a 100W lamp on it that is powered (free standing) from a 9V battery. You would let me observe it from all angles, run through a few 9V batteries, and make my tests, and when I was satisfied, I would give you all of my money, and the deed to all of my property in return for that prototype. If you truly believed you were correct, you would go around to all of your friends and family, and beg them for money to invest. You would mortgage your house, and sell your car. You would hock your golf clubs, and your wife's diamond ring. You would make your wife take a second job, and your kids mow the neighbor's lawn. You would do anything to get enough money to make a prototype that demonstrated you could get your over unity something for nothing. We are talking about a nearly instant payoff of billions of dollars! You aren't doing these things, you have no prototype, so no, I don't believe you. I've spent a whole lot of money, and most of my life developing a working understanding of the principles of electronics, electricity, and mechanics. I know the currents you are chasing, and they cannot be exploited for power, because as soon as you attempt to harness them, they no longer exist. There is nothing magical about plasma. It is hot is because you have dumped a lot of energy into making it that way. I think you are a desperate man who wants attention, and wants folks to marvel at how brilliant you are, when you really aren't. You are using what very little knowledge you have about electrical circuits, and are chasing things that others fully understand, but really are magic to you. Good luck in your quest. Bring me that shoebox prototype, and I'll get you money beyond your wildest dreams. -Chuck When I build it, I don't give a flying f.ck about your opinion of it, or what you call a test. I see it this way. I send the schematic, the circuit model, and from your opinion you may or may not have ran the simulation. I was being honest about having constructed and breadboarded this circuits, and they do work. If there were a secret key that I have failed to give anyone who is honestly interested in Over Unity, that was in the final stage for the plasma tube. Bascially, you need to hit a voltage high enough to ignite a plasma in an ionizing tube. Second, the circuit is constructed as follows: Secondary of the final output stage, coil in parallel with secondary, in series with a ionizing tube to replace a piece of wire in a parallel tank circuit, connected in parallel with the coil across the secondary. Then the transfer of energy can reach peak, and in the circuit example that I had giving a link to, it didn't include where the ionizing tube would be placed. Coil first, ionizing tube to replace a piece of wire, and capacitor in parallel with the coil. With the coil first, voltage leads, and ignites the plasma. Since the plasma tube/ionization tube places the capacitor in parallel with the inductor, it then should the frequency of the circuit be high enough, will not allow the plasma to cool off or reduce it's conductivity. It then heats up more and more sucessively with each cycle make the plasma more and more conductive eventually resulting in a plasma so conductive that there is no difference between it and a straight piece of wire in the circuit between the coil and the capacitor. Then you center your plasma tube in a magnetic field and heat sink. And convert back to usable power 166.00$ per 20 module : http://www.hi-z.com/ > When I build it, I don't give a flying f.ck about your opinion of it, Which must be why you keep responding. Please quote the original article so people can tell what you are commenting on. Google groups is just one way of viewing your thread. > or what you call a test. I see it this way. I send the schematic, > the circuit model, and from your opinion you may or may not have ran > the simulation. You are not understanding what your simulation is telling you. You are seeing the reactive current and getting all excited about the power you think you can extract from it. You are forgetting that power requires both current and voltage. Any means you use to extract power from that current will produce a burden that will be real power that comes from your source. I was being honest about having constructed and > breadboarded this circuits, and they do work. No you weren't. You were lying through your teeth. You hope they would work, but they cannot. I play with plasma every time I fire up my arc welder. When I strike an arc, the plasma gets verrrry hot. But my welder cables don't, so all the thousands of watts of power from my welder is going into heating the plasma. Power=IxIxR There is no power to heat the plasma if there is no resistance in the plasma stream. If there were a secret > key that I have failed to give anyone who is honestly interested in > Over Unity, that was in the final stage for the plasma tube. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the ionizing tube would be placed. Coil first, ionizing tube to > replace a piece of wire, and capacitor in parallel with the coil. Won't work. Sorry. If you want to extract 20 watts of heat from your plasma, you are going to have to put at least 20 watts of power into your plasma. > With the coil first, voltage leads, and ignites the plasma. Since the > plasma tube/ionization tube places the capacitor in parallel with the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And convert back to usable power 166.00$ per 20 module : > http://www.hi-z.com/ These modules are simply peltier devices such as are used to cool CPU's, and beer coolers. They extract power from heat, and give electricity by cooling down the heat... in this case your plasma. As I have told you, bring me a prototype, let me observe it, and verify there is no fraud going on (hidden batteries, etc)... And when you have shown me it works, you will have won the lottery. Bill Gates will look street urchin poor compared to you. I won't hold my breath. -Chuck [... insanity ...] :> Then you center your plasma tube in a magnetic field and heat sink. :> And convert back to usable power 166.00$ per 20 module : [... more insantiy ...] : As I have told you, bring me a prototype, let me observe it, and verify : there is no fraud going on (hidden batteries, etc)... And when you have : shown me it works, you will have won the lottery. Bill Gates will look : street urchin poor compared to you. Chuck, Forget about marketing his ridiculous power generating device. I say, market the stuff he is using to flavor his coffee! That must be one wicked powerful brew! Stuart > [... insanity ...] > :> Then you center your plasma tube in a magnetic field and heat sink. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Stuart Hi Stuart, I have no expectations that he will ever have anything to market. He is typical of the over-unity crowd: minimally educated. He knows just enough to get his hopes up. It is fascinating to watch people try and use Startrek as a starting point for basic research. "Cap'n we 'ave an overload in the plasma couplers! They're gonna blow any second now!" -Chuck >>>> Machinery/Energy Conversion: White/Woodson and Woodson/White ;-) >>> I had Woodson for 6.06. That was back in '64 or '65. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >have ever seen, and in only 38 pages. I don't know if it was Woodson or >Melcher that wrote that part, but I am sure that Melcher could have. Just bought a used copy... figured I owed it to myself to have a collector's item ;-) Since I knew both men well I'll try to decipher who wrote it. ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave sh.t, I bet any one of you sat and argued as much with your instructors in class. The first three component pissed you off and did work. 3 transformers and 3 capacitors are just too f.cking hard to pick up. If you did, you wouldn't be here arguing. If I were a woman, I would think were all fat and lazy. Because, my ultra fine a.s, with my perfect breasts have seen this circuit, and you can't have any. Cause your fat. > sh.t, I bet any one of you sat and argued as much with your > instructors in class. The first three component pissed you off and > did work. 3 transformers and 3 capacitors are just too f.cking hard > to pick up. If you did, you wouldn't be here arguing. Try quoting the article you are responding to. Most don't read this usenet group on google groups. I have done the experiment. This is freshman engineering stuff. What you are observing is reactive current. It is 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage. This is clearly shown on the LTSpice simulation. Power = Voltage x Current and in this case is precisely zero unless you are using lossless components. If you try to draw real power from it, it becomes real current, and quickly drops. You cannot draw more power from this circuit than you put into it. Less, actually because of real losses in the inductors, wires and capacitors. Would it help you any if I told you that even Tesla understood this? Make the prototype, create power from nothing and prove me wrong. I'll make you richer than Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet combined... unless you have something against being rich. -Chuck >sh.t, I bet any one of you sat and argued as much with your >instructors in class. The first three component pissed you off and >did work. 3 transformers and 3 capacitors are just too f.cking hard >to pick up. If you did, you wouldn't be here arguing. You are an ignoramus. Go home and tell your mother that she should have aborted you ;-) PLONK ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.