Amazing Tesla experiments! Totally new science - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 05:12:44 pm
content: Hi all,Please check out this amazing work done on this site:http://www.am-innovations.com/category/experiments/experiments-single-wire-currents/Check the video that is about half way done, around the 30 minute mark are some very unusual and amazing effects that can't be explained with our regular understanding of electronics and physics. Anyone want to try this out themselves or should we just dismiss it as impossible since we already know everything?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 06:10:17 pm
content: I see classical rotating coils and magnets -> free energy morons -> garbage.There is no point in investigating the taste of shit with different sauces, it will still taste like shit.

author: hexreader
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 06:18:30 pm
content: @OP You posted in the wrong sub-forumBelongs in "dodgy technology" section, in case somebody mistakenly thinks you are serious.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 06:35:33 pm
content: I'm not sure the dodgy technology" section existed the last time the OP posted... Over 4 years ago - a very long and tortuous free-energy thread.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 08:10:19 pm
content: 33 pages of that

author: ChristofferB
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 08:17:27 pm
content: Strange how all dubious scientific setups, like this one, has the same kind of vibe, look and feel to them. The 1930's meters, more wood than any other material, so on. It's hard to describe.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 08:19:03 pm
content: Free energy is not as profitable as one might expect. So got to save money on equipment and materials

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 08:29:21 pm
content: Quote from: ChristofferB on July 19, 2020, 08:17:27 pmThere’s a good English word to describe it: bollocks

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 08:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on July 19, 2020, 08:29:21 pmThis "Free energy" stuff is good for only one thing:learning new english words.In this case: bollocks - Schwachsinn in German.

author: mnementh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 08:57:01 pm
content: Speaking as a true creature of myth and legend... I have to say that entire body of "work" is utter fiction. With a little BS for garnish.mnem

author: Wolfgang
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 10:29:40 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 19, 2020, 05:12:44 pmHuman stupidity is the largest renewable resource available to mankind.If all this free energy stuff ever worked why arent these people millionaires, fly to the moon, glow in the dark, ... you name it.Have you noticed all their lab instruments are powered with *unfree* energy ?And - last but not least - why on earth do they need YOUR money and support ?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2020, 10:52:17 pm
content: Quote from: ChristofferB on July 19, 2020, 08:17:27 pmNot enough Bakelite for 1930's, more 60s/70s. And all that plywood is rather 60s/70s, in the 30s they'd have used real timber (often pukka Honduras Mahogany).

author: mnementh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 02:47:59 am
content: Oh, be thankful they're using shit-pine and lauan plywood. We need to save that good stuff for things with some redeeming value, like worldwide Theremin production.mnem

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:18:50 am
content: It's funny how you all claim to be scientific and objective and then don't even try the experiments out yourselves or do any sort of investigation. The effects shown at the 30 minute mark of the video I referenced is very similar to the effects shown in this video as well:https://youtu.be/3uXL4_Yas2kAt the 22 minute mark.That's two separate and independent experimenters showing similar effects but let's just dismiss that right? We already know everything about electronics and electricity right guys? Talk about being humbleSo two different experimenters with similar effects shown in both....let me guess must have been some excellent CGI effects?Why not just say you are lazy and a bunch of know it alls? Wouldn't that be easier than calling bullshit on an experiment you have never done?No one is claiming free energy here, it's just an anomalous effect shown (same effect) in each video. I thought the scientifically minded would be interested in replicating this? Whats with the prejudice guys?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:21:53 am
content: You understand that science is not done by watching 20th minute of a youtube video?If you want to be taken for real, write an article. Describe your experimental setup and observed results. Then you would have a sliver of a chance to be taken seriously.All pseudo-science and outright scams operate on poorly shot video. Science works on papers and articles.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:26:14 am
content: To be clear, these are not my experiments and I dont have a budget right now to attempt them. I would if I could. Cant younjust admit it's an interesting effect? You replied.to my.post within a minute - how did you see what happened in the second video that quickly? Seems like you are just brushing it off without even being curious about it.....why.Again, no one is claiming free energy here.As far as a paper or article, you can only get published in peer reviewed literature if the editors of that paper choose to publish you. That sounds like an appeal to authorities. Experiments are a much more free process and involves no one outside opinion to agree to perform that experiment

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:29:15 am
content: There is no "effect" until it is actually described. "We did this thing and something went wrong and we totally did not expect that" is not an "effect" or a "totally new science".No need to peer review, just a blog post. Nobody but like-minded lunatics would watch that video, I can guarantee you that.And that thing that editors are holding back the "new science" is also wearing a bit thin.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:34:39 am
content: Why do I have to describe an effect that is being recorded on video? Do you not recognize what is going on in the video?It's funny when someone brings up something new, like in a video, you dismiss it and don't even watch the video. How is that being scientific- just dismissing it? Why?"Oh if I havent seen that effect before it cant be real so I wont even bother watching it because we already know everything there is to know about electricity and science".....is that the logic?To be very clear, I know this video isnt definitive evidence and 99% of these videos out there are probably BS....but 100%? All the time? Without investigating?Cant you admit that it's at least an interesting effect if it can be duplicated? Seems like the guy put alot of time and effort into doing it and has some advanced equipment.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:39:23 am
content: Because the video does not let me review all the details of the experimental setup and observations in a coherent way. Article is also a minimal barrier that cuts a lot of garbage upfront. Making goofy videos is easy and fun, so a lot of pseudo-science people do that. Describing what you did is harder. Too hard in fact for that type of people.Science is not done though videos. Period."New science" may be, but it does not belong on this forum. I'm not against that stuff existing. I'm just not sure why are you bringing that to an engineering forum.Also, I would gladly look at a video by a person with an established reputation. With that I at least get a guarantee that it would not be a complete waste of my time. But you need to get that reputation first.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:45:04 am
content: It's futile to attempt to use logic in a debate with a true believer in pseudoscience. This thread should probably just be locked, it's a waste of time like every other free energy thread. It will just go around and around in circles.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:46:07 am
content: I'm sure if you were willing to watch the entire video (as unbearable as it may be, observing an experiment to the scientifically minded) - he describes the experiment and his set up along with the video recording of the experimental results.And asking me why I am bring this to an engineering forum....Well, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's an experiment that would take some engineering to do!!!!Please guys, just be open to the possibility that we don't know it all. It's called humility.I'm not saying this effect is free energy or that I know engineering better than all of you....I'm simply saying it's a fascinating effect! I thought an engineering forum would be excited to see something like this.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:47:14 am
content: Of course....when we don't like what the poster is saying let's just lock the thread. That way we can really be open to ideas!AGAIN, NO ONE IS CLAIMING FREE ENERGY IN THIS THREAD!

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:49:58 am
content: What is the effect? I actually went and looked the minute 30 if the video. I see a light bulb with a piece of paper powered by some noisy transformer-like device.What do you think is so interesting about that? What is new?

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:53:33 am
content: In both videos (not just one), you see the light coming from the powered bulb (which is coming from the single wire side of a Tesla transformer having the peculiar effect of an attractive force between it and some copper tape. The first video shows various materials with various degrees of response, and both videos showing an attractive force between the light bulb when powered and the copper tape. Obviously, regular powered light bulb does not have this effect. I find that interesting, don't you?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:56:15 am
content: Not really. You are supplying high-frequency AC voltage to the light bulb. This can create a lot of interactions.I would start with direct measurement of the EM field around the light bulb.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 05:01:51 am
content: Not interesting? Ok, well I suppose an difference of opinions there. Seems interesting to me. EM fields would be a good thing to measure no doubt, but it wouldn't really explain the direct attraction force shown there because copper tape usually responds very weakly (unless it is a very strong magnetic field - in which case wouldn't the recording be affected too?) to a magnetic field. Seems almost like an electrostatic effect.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 05:05:24 am
content: What is "very weakly". Where are calculations? That's the kind of stuff that goes into the article. Why would recording from a distance be affected by a local EM fields around the bulb?If it "seems" like something, why not setup a next experiment and do the measurements to prove or disprove the theory?You see, you need to try your hardest to disprove that there is a new science and try to explain the observed things using existing science.For now I don't see anything interesting here. And I think I'm done with this discussion.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 05:08:21 am
content: Edit: it was an aluminum leaf.The website in my OP has a very detailed breakdown of apparatus used and experimental set up. I would love to try this experiment myself if I had the funds to do so. I encourage anyone who is interested to try it themselves.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 05:15:38 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 20, 2020, 04:49:58 amJust looks like a bunch of numpties that don't understand basic HF effects like capactive coupling. Of course you can light a bulb with a singe wire if you pump enough high frequency current into it, that's how a lot of Tesla's original HF lighting systems worked. People just find some obscure piece of old science/tech and think "OOOH MAGIC!"Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 05:01:51 amOf course it's electrostatic...that's how capacitors and capacitive coupling works. If your return electrode is malleable, the dielectric is air, and the distance is short enough, of course it will move, it's at an apposite charge (in this case rapidly changing).

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 05:25:25 am
content: Most people don't even recognize Tesla's single wire system and it almost never talked about. I never claimed it was magic. However, most engineers would not even recognize a single wire system is even possible, let alone "old science". I am happy you have a good historic background on the subject, it is refreshing.As far as capacitative coupling, I would like to agree but seeing as the distance between the light and piece of malleable tape is more than a millimeter wide, the capacitance would be extremely low, almost negligible. On top of that if the current supplied is truly high frequency then how would that explain the unidirectional attractive force? So I dont think it is just capacitative coupling.Edit: I could be wrong on the capacitative coupling point....the object in question - from source of light to copper tape seems to be at least 2-3 cm away conservatively. This makes the capacitance less than a nanofarad....I could be wrong just thinking out loud here. Can someone reproduce this effect?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 05:52:58 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 20, 2020, 05:15:38 amWasn't he focused on wireless lighting? That does work to a degree, it's a classic Tesla coil experiment that I've done myself. Pump enough RF into a room and fluorescent tubes several feet away will light up. It's cool, but not very useful as it knocks out radio reception and you tend to get RF burns if you touch grounded metal objects. Been there, done that.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 05:57:11 am
content: Wireless lighting was more of a neat side effect to his experiments rather than his main intent. Seeing as Tesla did innumerable experiments and was a man of great capabilities, it is no surprise he covered a lot of different sub-topics.See? Not everyone is familiar with the single wire currents. This is fun, a good exchange of information and experiences here. Thank you!

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 06:04:48 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 04:18:50 amBecause maybe 5 people on this forum actually care about Tesla coilsBecause you demand to spend half an hour on YT just to understand what you are talking about.Because there is a thousand videos with Tesla coils, sparks and shit and you haven't explained how this one is any better.Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 04:18:50 amKeep this virtue signaling for brainwashed the American-Liberal-Judeochristian-Democratic-Progressive-Scientific crowd, it will work on many (though not all) of themSome of us are know-it-all a**holes and proud of it.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 06:06:42 am
content: "Because there is a thousand videos with Tesla coils, sparks and shit and you haven't explained how this one is any better."Thanks for reading the whole thread and really adding to this topic.....and claiming to be a know it all LOL. So if you know so much, why waste time on this forum replying to me? You should be out saving the world with all your knowledge.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 06:09:08 am
content: Is there not a thousand Tesla coil videos or have you actually explained what's going on in the one you linked and why it's any more interesting than the others?You don't even seem to claim that it's able to produce free energy this time.If you at least got it working to the point of making free enerngy, maybe there would be some interest in watching it and duplicating the machine.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 06:13:29 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 06:06:42 amBecause I know that you are wrong

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 06:14:05 am
content: In the interest of time, I would prefer not to repeat myself so you can read the thread to catch up on what I found interesting and how it could be explained and replicated. If you have access to videos showing similar effects on single wire current, please share!

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 06:45:08 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 05:25:25 amImpedance drops as frequency increases. Also, it IS vibrating at high frequency due to the alternating current, the frequency is just high enough that the material can't physically move vary far before the polarity equalizes again, so the net result is attarction. You might be able to detect the vibrations with some form of ultrasonic sensing.In Tesla's one wire system descriptions and schematics there is always some form of dedicated return plate/electrode to be placed in the room, preferably hidden near the lamps for maximum coupling.I definately want to experiment with 1 wire systems and ultimate goal for awesome steampunk lab lighting (obviously with a normal 2-wire as well for when the EMI gets too much). People have experimented with 1-wire lighting recenly (with experiments such as adding gasses to carbon-button lamps to increase output and lifespan).These guys seem mosty legit, a bit nuts like Tesla himself but legit (in the sense of actual scientific method, at least from what I see). Ignore the anti-gravity thing...it's a joke (the page itself debunks anti-gravity).https://antigravity.net.au/about-us/

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 07:03:57 am
content: Quote from: magic on July 20, 2020, 06:09:08 amMost tesla coil peeps just shoot random sparks and go "ooo look, mini lightning!", then even go so far as so put some shit chopper circuit to make "notes" and if you put a proper audio driver on it you get a plasma speaker, which is cool, but still in the overdone catagory. This is why people like you think Telsa tech is just a bunch of toys and don't understand the original intent, because so few people actually build proper tuned circuits and HF experiments to use tesla coils for what they were originally designed for.

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 07:20:48 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 04:34:39 amBecause, since Richard P. Feynman and others having invented the theory of the Quantum Electro Dynamics (in short: QED), we do have a very good and well proven theory of everything about what's going on with electrons and photons.If something new is coming the way, then it has to be considered in respect to the QED.Like it or not, it is as ataradov ist saying: real science is about articles and papers and not a questionable youtube video.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 07:56:33 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 20, 2020, 07:03:57 amOkay, so you are one of those 5 peopleI have heard that Tesla experimented with that stuff for wireless power transmission or something like that. So I guess lighting lightbulbs is close to the original intent indeed.It looks to me like those "single wire" setups create a strong AC electric field tapering off with distance and that's what causes current flow through conductors aligned with the field's gradient, proportionally to the distance, conductor length and stuff like that. I guess it does go beyond the usual kindergarten level theory of electricity (electrons move through conductors, if you open the switch the bulb turns off), but in which universe is it cutting edge science

author: mnementh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 12:50:05 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 05:57:11 amThat's because with these setups, the resistance is SO high that there is no CURRENT flow to speak of. Megavolts at picoAmps at high frequencies. It is trying to get work done out of the emissions of a radio broadcast (In case you didn't know, radio broadcast at anything more than a few meters literally will not power a 3" speaker directly); you can transmit DATA this way, but NOT horsepower.This is the stuff of voodoo electronics; You pump 1000x as much energy into the system as you get actual work done out of it. The bottom line is IS the bottom line; the math involved is literally grade-school arithmetic. EVERYTHING ELSE you see there is just a fat load of dingoes' kidneys.mnemOTOH, I guess we should just be glad the guy isn't going from town to town electrocuting small animals like Edison did...

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 12:51:19 pm
content: Dunno about that. I like the smell of a good barbecue

author: mnementh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 01:27:39 pm
content: Edison almost wound up burned at the stake in one small town; one of the critters he fried was a dog that belonged to the mayor's daughter and she was present for his little HV circus.mnem

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 01:34:46 pm
content: In short: Edison was an asshole.

author: mnementh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 02:50:18 pm
content: Eeeehhh... he was a businessman. He was part carny barker, part loan shark... he figured out thebusinessof inventing in a time when there was no such thing. Tesla was the polar opposite; a true scientist interested in science for its own sake and the betterment of humanity.Westinghouse wisely chose to leverage Edison's business talents as reign on Tesla's immense genius; it was quite the accomplishment, getting people to pay money for electrical power when the "fuel" came essentially for free in the form of moving water. But that created the fundamental business model by which other forms of power were delivered, and to a large extent, how the economy of our entire modern society now runs, for good or evil.The elites of the time were outraged because it in large part meant that wealth was no longerautomaticallypart and parcel of who won the parentage lottery.However, as with any system; once it's been established, the "elites" will find a way to corrupt it to their own ends.It is only during those brief periodswhile the current paradigm is in fluxthat there is any real social equity.mnem/soapbox

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 02:52:54 pm
content: Quote from: mnementh on July 20, 2020, 12:50:05 pmI'm gonna stop you right there...first of all it's IMPEDANCE at HF AC. Second of all these were tuned systems to try and squeeze at much power out as possible. Telsa was a nut but he was not stupid. Third, that was the turn of the century era, they didn''t have LEDs or solid state electronics. (It wasn't even until his later years that vacuum tubes, with the advent of tube radio transmitter, became powerful enough to use for driving coils). So no, they were not effecient by todays standards, but neither were the carbon filament bulbs of the era either.EDIT: The orginal system's return plates were also not tiny foil bits, they were massive metal plates that were meant to be embedded in a wall/floor. Carbon button lamps are also really effecient (similar to modern HID), but we're talking about system effeciency here, not indevedual lamps.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:11:00 pm
content: Thanks for the discussion guys. I do see the malleable tape vibrating, but if it vibrates back and forth how would it be attracted in one particular direction? Interesting nonetheless.Edit: To be clear, Tesla's magnifying transmitter was not intended to transmit wirelessly. Instead, he would use the Earth as his single wire conductor and have another Tesla receiver placed anywhere on Earth that would pick up this current being sent through the Earth, and in that sense it was "wireless". No wires connecting the two transceivers, just the Earth acting as a conductor in between them.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:11:45 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 20, 2020, 07:03:57 amAnyone who would describe the ability toplay rock guitar via lightningas "overdone" hasnosoul andnosense of fun.

author: mnementh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:36:16 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 04:11:00 pmNo, the earth was the return path. His vision for "universal energy" treated the atmosphere of the planet as a dielectric in a huge network of capacitive-coupling towers like the one at his lab in Wardenclyffe. He himself used the phrase "wireless transmission of power".mnem

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 04:51:14 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 19, 2020, 05:12:44 pmI have a friend who built up their own one-wire experiment and a few of us played with it. It's been a while but a few things I remember noticing was the efficiency was pretty high. Distance seemed to have little effect. We played with a meter to maybe 30 meters. Having the transmitter inside of a screen room with the receiver on the outside had little to no effect. Looping the wire back on itself had a dramatic effect on the signal.This is a fun little experiment if you have never done it. I certainly wouldn't suggest it's impossible nor anything new.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 07:42:38 pm
content: QuoteYou mean for wireless lighting?QuoteCan you explain this further please? By screen room do you mean a sort of Faraday cage?QuoteNor did I claim it was impossible and not new in a sense that Tesla did these experiments before. Do you have any videos that you could reference that show this type of experiment - even if it's not your own?QuoteNot correct based on my understanding. The earth acted as the single conductor and he does not mention the atmosphere acting as a dielectric to form a capacitative coupling effect. He used the word "wireless" because in a sense there was no wire that was acting as the transmission medium, instead it was the Earth.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 10:19:35 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 07:42:38 pmI am not sure what you are asking. The system used a single conductor and was not wireless. I want to say we were seeing above 80% efficiency with the whole system.Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 07:42:38 pmIt was a small Lindgren screen room. See the following:http://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-enclosures/11003/1100303Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 07:42:38 pmWe didn't make any sort of video for it but really, it wasn't much to build. It was fairly scaled down. Something akin to a school science project. I have seen a video demonstrating it, maybe by an amateur radio group. I don't remember them measuring the efficiency but they ran a fan and it seems like a few other loads. I remember some of the video was a bit sketchy but after playing with the small model don't doubt what they had shown. I'm sure there are a few videos out there and some decent papers if you Google it. It pretty old.I've never came up with a use for it, nor have I attempted to run the experiment again after that.I wouldn't call it "Totally new science" as it's nothing new. I also wouldn't say it's dodgy.

author: ChristofferB
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 10:38:36 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 04:18:50 amThere is a HUGE amount of research published every day of the year, too much for any one person to absorb, much of which is really really strange, foreign and interesting. A BIG part of reviewing others scientific observations is fairly quickly assessing whether any experiment/result is likely to be genuine. And right there, if it feels janky, it's probably janky isn't a bad philosophy.This is not to bash amateur / independent research but when an experimental setup looks like kinda like a movie prop, with more care given to aesthetics than functionality, and the author don't format their findings how science is conventionally communicated, it is asking too much of the reader to assume they'll catch on.If there is no abstract, ie. 15 lines describing what was done and what the result was completely to the point, no matter how real the science may be, it will smell fishy.And for experimental setups: The more amazing the physics that is demonstrated, the better/more measuring or detecting equipment is required to rule out other sources for the results or errors.Most lab equipment one would ever want for this is dirt cheap 2nd hand on ebay. If I wanted to convince an audience of something amazing I'd discovered I would make absolutely sure my instrumentation was of a standard where no doubt could be cast on it.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2020, 11:05:04 pm
content: QuoteSo to be clear, you had one set of transceivers in the room and the other set outside and the effect diminished to a negligible level?Tesla had a very interesting quote with an experiment he did using what is effectively a Faraday cage. in his article "EXPERIMENTS WITH ALTERNATE CURRENTS OF HIGH POTENTIAL AND HIGH FREQUENCY" he states the following:"I have here a short and wide tube which is exhausted to a high degree and covered with a substantial coating of bronze, the coating allowing barely the light to shine through. A metallic clasp, with a hook for suspending the tube, is fastened around the middle portion of the latter, the clasp being in contact with the bronze coating. I now want to light the gas inside by suspending the tube on a wire connected to the coil. Any one who would try the experiment for the first time, not having any previous experience, would probably take care to be quite alone when making the trial, for fear that he might become the joke of his assistants. Still, the bulb lights in spite of the metal coating, and the light can be distinctly perceived through the latter. A long tube covered with aluminium bronze lights when held in one hand—the other touching the terminal of the coil—quite powerfully. It might be objected that the coatings are not sufficiently conducting; still, even if they were highly resistant, they ought to screen the gas. They certainly screen it perfectly in a condition of rest, but not by far perfectly when the charge is surging in the coating. But the loss of energy which occurs within the tube, notwithstanding the screen, is occasioned principally by the presence of the gas. Were we to take a large hollow metallic sphere and fill it with a perfect incompressible fluid dielectric, there would be no loss inside of the sphere, and consequently the inside might be considered as perfectly screened, though the potential be very rapidly alternating. Even were the sphere filled with oil, the loss would be incomparably smaller than when the fluid is replaced by a gas, for in the latter case the force produces displacements; that means impact and collisions in the inside."Fascinating?I have not seen many videos with the single wire system and would love to learn more about it if you have any references other than videos.As far as presentation, yes we would all love formal documents with an abstract and all that. However, not having that alone isn't a basis for dismissal.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2020, 12:51:59 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 20, 2020, 11:05:04 pmWe had the transmitter inside the screen room with the wire going outside to the receiver. This had minimal effect on the signal.While I don't have any Tesla coils laying around, I do have several ignition coil packs laying around for the bikes. I would imagine a couple of these, the HP signal generator and some foil would be enough to see the effects.....Just tried it. Not optimized. Just driving the coil directly with a sine. Maybe 5 meters apart, 11.8mW input and getting about 4.079mW out. I'm sure I could push enough power into one of these coils to turn a small motor on the output.The patents for it are on-line for free. I doubt anyone would dispute that you can't transfer power this way. I just can't think of why you would. Even if I remember right and we were closer to 80%, I could double the copper and do a much better job.Again, it's really no big deal and hardly worth the effort to make a video of it.I'm not sure if they ever fixed the problems when displaying pictures. This is the transmitter. Coil, some wire, foil and tape. I'm sure someone is thinking that idiot is going to damage all of their test equipment with that high voltage. Before you chime in with your dumb comment, the output signal is too low to detect it with my hand. I bet even a UNI-T meter would survive being hooked to it.....Also, just to head off another question. I used the Fluke meters to measure the power in and out. The drive frequency is well within what these meters can read.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2020, 02:32:49 am
content: The ignition coils are designed for 12V. Shown is the receiver with a small automotive incandescent lamp. White wire is the reference to the transmitter coil.When my friend ran this experiment, he had made a couple of small Tesla coils. I remember the usable frequency range being fairly narrow. These coils allow for a much broader range.Again, no magic and nothing totally new. We haven't created some over unity contraption by invoking Tesla's name. It's not dodgy and it's a simple enough experiment for the beginner to try using some common parts from the automotive store or local scrap heap.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2020, 03:03:07 am
content: I would be interested to see a full picture of the set up along with a schematic. The point of his system wasn't to get free energy, just a world system for the transmission of power. The fact that you had the receiver in a Faraday cage and no attenuation is very interesting because it rules out power transfer by RF, induction or capacitative coupling.I'm still unsure about the attractive force of the light bulb and metal tape. Some have suggested explanations, but I dont see it being due to capacitative coupling and if it really vibrates back and forth due to HF AC then why would the attraction be unidirectional?Also notice in the Tesla quote I mentioned above he referenced doing the experiment alone since he was afraid of ridicule. It's my understanding from reading the quote something unique happened that allowed the signal to pass through even with a metal coating acting as a Faraday cage. Please correct me if I am wrong.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2020, 04:23:43 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 21, 2020, 03:03:07 amAs you can see from the pictures, there's not a lot to it. Two transformers back to back, basically directly coupled on one leg with the two plates on the other. Of course these transformers are designed for operation well above 60Hz.In order to light the small bulb, we need more than 10mW. In this case I need to drive the primary hard enough to overcome the losses of the system. At these levels, the foil on the receiver will have a fair bit of voltage relative to say your body which is also surrounded by the same atmosphere and I'm guessing with even more surface area. Touch the foil and you may feel it. Shown is a typical Phillips LED household lamp. My body touching one leg, the other touching the foil. Note, if just the lamp is touching the foil, it will not light. We need two coupling networks.All of Tesla's patents, including several on this subject are available for free on-line. I suggest reading them all, starting with the oldest and working your way through them as it provides some level of context. I've attached 645,576 which discusses how the atmosphere conducts under the electrical stresses and extends far beyond what is discernible with the eye.Again, there's no need for trick light bulbs and other parlor tricks. There's no magic.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2020, 05:02:12 am
content: Yep, there's not much to it, it really is that simple.https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/electric-lighting/

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 12:28:01 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 21, 2020, 05:02:12 amI spent some time going over much of their website and enjoyed the read. The patents are pretty dry.Spoke with my friend who had ran this experiment and they thought it had reached 88% efficiency. Much better than the 30% I am seeing with the ignition coils and sheets of foil. They remembered the shape of the spheres having to do with the efficiency.We never tried to use anything other than the wire to reference the two coils.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 02:08:08 am
content: Who said it was magic?No comment on the Tesla quote?"I have here a short and wide tube which is exhausted to a high degree and covered with a substantial coating of bronze, the coating allowing barely the light to shine through. A metallic clasp, with a hook for suspending the tube, is fastened around the middle portion of the latter, the clasp being in contact with the bronze coating. I now want to light the gas inside by suspending the tube on a wire connected to the coil.Any one who would try the experiment for the first time, not having any previous experience, would probably take care to be quite alone when making the trial, for fear that he might become the joke of his assistants. Still, the bulb lights in spite of the metal coating, and the light can be distinctly perceived through the latter.A long tube covered with aluminium bronze lights when held in one hand—the other touching the terminal of the coil—quite powerfully. It might be objected that the coatings are not sufficiently conducting; still, even if they were highly resistant, they ought to screen the gas. They certainly screen it perfectly in a condition of rest, but not by far perfectly when the charge is surging in the coating. But the loss of energy which occurs within the tube, notwithstanding the screen, is occasioned principally by the presence of the gas. Were we to take a large hollow metallic sphere and fill it with a perfect incompressible fluid dielectric, there would be no loss inside of the sphere, and consequently the inside might be considered as perfectly screened, though the potential be very rapidly alternating. Even were the sphere filled with oil, the loss would be incomparably smaller than when the fluid is replaced by a gas, for in the latter case the force produces displacements; that means impact and collisions in the inside."Everyone claiming to explain away the magic, and again I am claiming no magic here, but let's please not pretend like we already know everything in this universe. If that was the case, science would be dead and our lives would be boring.Edit: and again I ask, can someone provide me textbook references or engineering references that talk about single wire currents? Just as a theoretical study, not for any specific application

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 02:15:28 am
content: @joeqsmith to be clear, your schematic does not really use a single wire current as the load is being powered from a secondary winding of a transformer, so not quite as Tesla's patent or the experiments show

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 05:03:35 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 22, 2020, 02:15:28 amYes and no. In the Tesla schematics the return capacitor is implied or shown by only one plate (or wire loop). Both are capacitively coupled, just having two metal plates is being more blunt. It depends on what you're powering with the output whether you need the second transformer on the receiving end (most of Tesla's stuff were HF discharge lamps, but sometimes incandesants as well, in this case there was often a transformer, sometimes with one coil inside the bulb itself).

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 12:32:36 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 22, 2020, 02:15:28 amYou asked for a schematic:Quoteand I provided it.I take it you are not a EE and your background doesn't require you to do any research. First, Tesla held many patents, not just one. I attempted to make it easy by attaching two patents in my previous post. I have now removed the second.Using transformers to match the source to the load is nothing new. Tesla knew it. The second patent showed different methods of impedance matching. If you had taken the time to read and understand that patent you would not make such an ignorant statement.QuoteSee the attached image that goes with the above text.Again, there is nothing new going on and no magic is involved. I would imagine if you are having trouble reading the patents, attempting to read most higher level books will pose a problem for you as well. You could try conducting some experiments on your own but I would caution you that I have seen many people draw wrong conclusions based on bad measurements and test setups.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 04:51:04 pm
content: Still no one yet to comment on the Tesla quote I mentioned twice. I actually do have degrees in both Physics and Engineering, but I always appreciate a good ad hominem attack.You are quite right, he had many fantastic patents, however, you are referring to two different processes. One is to use a transformer to couple the single wire current to a load using two wires, and the other is running the load directly on the single wire which is shown in the Electric Lighting patent referenced above.To be clear, the elevated top load in the Tesla Magnifying Transmitter is used as a virtual ground, and although it has a capacitative effect, it's main purpose is to act as a virtual ground, not to capacitatively couple to anything. If you think about it, capacitative coupling only works over small ranges so that would not fit into the worldwide transmission system Tesla designed.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 06:40:05 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 22, 2020, 04:51:04 pmI am only providing you with one of the patents that I had based my comments on. In the case of the output matching, to me that's hardly worth discussing. The same for using the wire or the earth for the conductor, to me makes little difference.Quote from: Deco56 on July 22, 2020, 04:51:04 pmThat is correct. As he describes, he want's the majority to conduct through the ground. When we talk about a single wire system, we are talking about the transmitter to the receiver, not the coupling in the receiver to the load. Again to me, earth ground or wire, no difference. The idea of using the self capacitance to act as the virtual ground is the key point. This is why the screen room had no effect. It's also why I am able to run at 10mW levels. There's no lightning bolts or smell of ozone.All pretty basic stuff. No magic. Nothing new. I didn't go to the link you provided so maybe I am missing something. I just saw all the Tesla bashing and the instant dismissal of what was being presented and figured I would inject a few comments.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 03:56:02 am
content: I personally can never understand the Tesla bashing. Comment on his eccentric personality sure, but do not question his scientific prowess.I appreciate any feedback given, I am not here trying to argue, name call or claim any magic. However, there are quite a few points still left undiscussed:1. Tesla's quote of a unique experiment he tried that he implied would be a silly experiment to try in normal circumstances, but that produced strange results. The quote is a big ambiguous as to the methods, but the effect referenced is unusual.2. The videos I referenced show another interesting effect of an attractive force that is produced between a light being driven on the single wire (not coupled into by a transformer) and a piece of metallic tape. Still haven't heard an explanation to this effect that makes sense. Capacitative coupling would be weak at those centimeter distances and wouldn't explain the unidirectional force if was a high frequency effect. Maybe I am wrong there, if someone wants to claim there is high capacitance there please explain.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 04:57:13 am
content: Provide a timestamp to the that part of the video you are referring to.In my demo, imagine shrinking the receiver's foil down to something very small. By itself, it would have little self capacitance and the system would not work very well. Now imagine making a second larger plate and connecting the two together with some series resistance. You could then measure some potential across each as the larger plate would be providing the majority of the virtual ground as you say.To demonstrate this, the center of the Phillips LED house light is contacting the aluminum foil. The glass bulb part is just laying on top of the PCB which has much more surface area than the foil. There are no electrical connections to the PCB. The difference is enough to get the LEDs to glow. Of course the secondary coil is still able to light the small automotive lamp as well. It should be clear from my previous picture where my hand made contact with the bulbs second conductor and the bulb was much brighter that the same would happen if I were to allow the bulb to make a DC connection to both plates.I want to be clear that while I measured 30ish% efficiency, this experiment alone give you some idea that my plates don't have near enough self capacitance. It really wasn't my goal to try an optimize the setup. That's what my friend was attempting to do when they reached 88%.It should have been clear to Tesla early on that trying to overcome the losses of the earth were a problem. From reading his patents and other bits he published, I can just imagine him in this vicious cycle, of more voltage until bang!!!! Then higher tower and more voltage... Until, Bang!... More money.... Bigger transformers, more engines... better ground.... As an investor, I wouldn't have let it continue. It worked well enough to patent and secure investments.He brought a lot to the table but I don't share his vision of using the earth as a conductor on a large scale.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 05:38:14 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 22, 2020, 02:08:08 amSo electronics is not my field, but I feel compelled to think that any textbook on RF engineering would address this question. If you take any standard FM radio receiver, the telescopic antenna is a "single wire" that conducts the current from the received radio signal into the receiver.Everything else is a matter of scale, geometry and power levels.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 12:49:45 pm
content: When I was in my teens, I had a friend who was also playing with radio. We strung up a wire antenna over their house. His room was on the top floor. We turned on the radio to try out the new antenna and lit the bulbs in the upstairs. In this case we were using maybe 100W, maybe 4 meters away. Even then with no education I could see how bad the losses were through free space.Your FM radio does a bit of work to amplify the tiny signals it receives .... It requires a battery to boost the signal high enough to drive a speaker that you can hear.That said, again, as many children do, I had constructed a simple crystal radio. I had a long wire antenna that I would use with it. We had a small AM station just down the road from our house putting out 1KW. The antenna was maybe a mile away. Even at that short distance, it was enough to drive a speaker but that was about the extent of it. The goal would have been not only to provide enough power to run the radio, but power your lights as well, all the while pumping water for the livestock...Sure today we can use very high gain antennas and even microwaves to help out but flipping the problem and using the earth to send the signal was far more effective. Just not as effective as some copper wire...I had read a pretty good physics books from one of the universities that may be of help. If you have ever bought a book, you know the prices are up there. This one is available for free. I'll see if I can find it again and post a link.*****Obviously, depending on your ability to read which appears to be a lost art now, and your attention span which also seems to be in short supply anymore, and your area of interest, you may find the book enlightening. Personally, I found it to be a good read.https://www.slideshare.net/lmcl92/128728926-electricityandmagnetismberkeleyphysicscoursepurcell

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 04:25:31 am
content: Timestamps are 30 minute mark and 22 minute mark of both videos I have referenced earlier. Please check out that and tell me what you think, I don't usually see light and metallic tape interacting like that.And still no comment on the Tesla quote. Or textbook references to single wire currencts and powering loads off of them. Also, an antenna does have current in it but that current is being transformed into electromagnetic radiation and heat and is also reflecting on the open end so this is not meant for maximum power transfer. Different situations .

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 05:05:20 am
content: A discharge bulb coated in metal will light due to the skin effect of the RF energizing the whole surface, and the fact that the sheild was connected to the source of RF (not grounded or left floating) in both cases causing it to be fully energized. The same effect would occur if you wrapped a flourescent tube in foil and exited it externally by touching an HF source.EDIT: Yes, of course skin effect still applies to one-wire systems. There is still a flow of AC which will induce magnetic feilds. This occurs in any conductor (to varying degrees), and plasma is a conductor, which generates a magnetic feild which pushes the current to the ouside of the tube where there is now a convenient conductor which in turn creates an electric field which excits the plasma.If I had a guess (might be totally wrong) but the plasma in the coated/covered tube might look more toroidal down the length.

author: alsetalokin4017
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:40:42 am
content: This?

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 11:55:24 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 24, 2020, 04:25:31 amQuickly scrolling through the link, there appears to be at least three videos. At 30 minutes into the first one, a guy is holding a large bulb between to coils. Big deal. Quickly scanning the video, all I saw was a handful of guys standing around playing with the large bulb and a couple of coils. Just a waste of my time.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 04:50:48 pm
content: A piece of aluminum (BR. Aluminium) foil is readily attracted to plasma ball as if it were a magnet. Now if my hypothesis is correct, that this is purely electrostatic a current should be flowing in this foil even when not touching the bulb.(if I can get the foil to be pulled without sticking that is...stupid foil foiling my plans and wanting to stick)From a small, irregular piece of foil about 1cm away from a 7cm, mains powered plasma globe, I get about 20-30VAC (up to about 40V if I get it close enough without sticking). If the foil contacts the bulb the reading shoots up to around 180-220V. Results measured with both a DMM and VTVM. (my DMM is on it's last legs anyway, let alone trying to measure HF).Note: the difference in distance between being slightly attracted and instantly sticking is rather small. I believe this to be due to the energy source being a small decorative discharge lamp and not a high power tesla coil.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 05:47:16 pm
content: https://youtu.be/3uXL4_Yas2k@ 22 minute mark.https://player.vimeo.com/video/392221283@ the 30 minute mark approximately.I have still not heard of a good explanation yet. Too far a distance for capacitative coupling, and not sure how it can be electrostatic effect in a dynamic power system.Still no comment on the Tesla quote either...

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:59:48 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 24, 2020, 05:47:16 pmQuote from: Cyberdragon on July 24, 2020, 04:50:48 pmNote 2: The bulb used was only 4W.I have not experimented with the covered bulb effect yet.EDIT: I'm out for trying the covered bulb, 4W barely gets a glimmer from a small CFL. I blew up my flybacks as a kid, and short of ripping one out of a scope, I do not have a sufficient energy source.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 09:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 24, 2020, 05:47:16 pmI'm not sure why your lack of an explanation is our problem? Why are you demanding other people to tell you about things you don't understand?There are videos of people playing with Tesla coils. Lots of people play with Tesla coils. There are many such videos. Tesla coils are fun. Watch them and be entertained. If you want to understand how they work, you will have to do some studying.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 09:38:09 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 24, 2020, 09:06:02 pmHe seems to be having trouble understanding electrostatic attraction, not nescessarily tesla coils in general.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:13:07 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 24, 2020, 09:38:09 pmThere's also electromagnetic induction. If you induce eddy currents in a piece of metal it will experience a force if it is within a magnetic field. That is how induction motors work.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:24:26 pm
content: There will be a charge imbalance between the bulbs and film is all.On the transmitter side, I have the foil hanging down from the wire. I can for example approach this with a bit of plastic film in my hand and the two will be attracted. Odd this would be a question for someone who has a physics background. Of course when they removed the bulb the effect was greatly reduced.As children we would create a charge imbalance using balloons and our hair, or our wool sweaters. We would rub them and stick them on the walls, each other, the pets...... Again, its nothing new and there's no magic. Well, I say that but I will fully admit that my physics skills are greatly lacking. Physicists would loose me pretty quickly if we dive deeper into the details.It reminds me of this interview with Feynman:You should take the time to read that physics book I linked. You may enjoy it.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:44:39 pm
content: So, I just watched that segment again after finding it. I wish more interviews were conducted this way. You have someone sitting there who is on a whole different level than yourself. All you need to do is get them started, then shut the fuck up. Don't interrupt them. Just let them talk. You see a lot of interviews where the person conducting the interview has some desire to inject their own small comments. The person they are interviewing will normally be very well mannered and abruptly stop talking. Then we have to wait for the interviewer to make some small point and shut up. Maybe it's just me but I really enjoyed just listing to Feynman talk.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:49:43 pm
content: It is also important to note that electrostatics will still happen at alternating current as well. If you were to look at the waveforms of the changes in charge of the two charged bodies you would have 2 waves 180° out of phase. The net result is opposite polarity, therefore the net force between the charges will be attraction.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:52:10 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 24, 2020, 10:13:07 pmReal cool trick if you haven't already done it/seen it: Take a reasonably powerful small magnet, neo-diddley-um for preference. Get a slug of similarly sized and weight metal, and a copper, brass or aluminium pipe (15mm water pipe or similar). Hold the pipe vertical and drop the non-magnet down it - "Whoosh, thump" hits the ground in a fraction a second. Now do the same with the magnet, it drifts down the pipe taking several seconds, retarded by the magnetic field created by the induced eddy currents in the pipe created by the falling magnet. Easy source of free drinks if done in the pub with a bit of showmanship.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:58:45 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 24, 2020, 10:44:39 pmI don't disagree with you a bit, but Feynman was amasterat explaining things and also a master raconteur - exactly the kind of person you just wind up and let him do his stuff. People would buy Feynman dinner just to sit back and listen to his stories. Some people need an interviewer to guide them a bit, or winkle out an explanation when they think their audience may need it. The late Raymond Baxter is possibly the best I've ever seen at doing this while remaining as unobtrusive as possible.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 11:37:49 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on July 24, 2020, 10:58:45 pmVery true. It seems as though in many cases the person conducting the interview has a need to make it about themselves. Many times they are pugnacious and appear to attempt to compete with the person they are interviewing. Normally they are way out of their league and it ruins the interview. I may be just tainted by the poor reporters in the USA who have little to no manners.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 12:17:10 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 24, 2020, 11:37:49 pmI get what you're saying. I was thinking in terms of quasi-educational programming and 'popular science' which was once the forté of UK programming. We used to do it really well - nowadays I feel it's a bit dumbed down and get annoyed when interviewers ask questions that force the interviewee to oversimplify what they are saying. The media consistently underestimate the ability of the common person to follow a less than simple topic or an argument that isn't pure black and white.As far as reporting in general, there are different styles in different parts of the world and I used to point to the way America had 'news anchors' who were clearly the result of mere reporters ambitiously scrabbling the way to the top of the tree versus the UK style of having news readers who seemed essentially rank less. I'm sure there was internal scrabbling to get behind a nice warm desk rather than report from a muddy flooded field, but it didn't come over in the public presentation. So US reporting did always come across to me as much more personality based than here. I would say that UK general reporting is not what it once was having gone from overly deferential to public figures and 'experts' in the 70s - rarely interrupting or challenging an interviewee, through adequately challenging in the 80s/90s, to sometimes needlessly confrontational nowadays where it has become perhaps more personality centric. Also nowadays everything has to be 'balanced', resulting in arrant nonsense getting as much screen time as legitimate arguments and legitimate counter-arguments in the name of 'balance'. The whole 'balance' thing frequently includes saying something like "how would you answer people who say <the opposite of what you've just said>" when the interviewee has said something like "The sky is blue".

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 01:03:56 am
content: My take on UK programming... Guy Martin.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 02:44:30 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 25, 2020, 01:03:56 amPure class*(and a lot of tea), as was Fred Dibnah.*With a short 'a' sound, as in lass or Lassie.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 02:48:34 am
content: Richard Feynman, in a nutshell, when asked, "How do magnets work?"Answer: "Well it's not really possible to answer that, they just do what they do. We can describe what they do with great mathematical precision, and predict outcomes very accurately. But how do they do it? Who knows?"

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 02:57:03 am
content: Another free energy thread?Why don't these people just make their working over-unity machine and sell it? They'd be instant billionaires and win a Nobel prize in physics.https://youtu.be/47-o5iE6FM4?t=38

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 03:59:02 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on July 25, 2020, 02:44:30 amI followed John and Guy on the Isle of Man. Some of the best driving I've ever had the pleasure to see. Guys shows are some of the best I have watched in years.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 04:17:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2020, 02:57:03 amOutside of your comment, I don't think there has been any mentioned over-unity. I've tossed out 88% top 30% using copper. I think if Tesla had an idea of free, it meant free to the masses, not free to generate. In the case of the OP, I think they are just trying to understand more about it. I can certainly understand it seeming a bit amazing but it's certainly not new science.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 06:05:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2020, 02:57:03 amIt's not free energy they're claiming this time. Not every Tesla nut, even if there's BS involved, is a free energy nut. We need to stop that stereotype or we're gonna end up right back here with the same problem, people not understanding basic science.In this case they claim wizzbang "rays of energy" that "affect physical matter" because they don't understand one-wire currents or how a simple piece of foil is attracted to a highly charged surface.I've heard this crap alot when reseaching Tesla myself (and from other wackjob sources like free-energy/wireless energy/whatever woowoo) so much so that I actually created a sci-fi/fantasy story universe where a guy in the Tesla era creates magic lamps that harness interdimensional alien Z-rays that can cause weird supernatural effects on our universe (including summoning magical alien cyborgs).I mean hey, when life gives you bullshit...make a good story out of it.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 06:36:26 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 19, 2020, 05:12:44 pmQuote from: joeqsmith on July 25, 2020, 04:17:09 amtl;dr3(this entire post is primarily aimed at Deco56)As Dave said/hinted, it does seem to be related to free energy claims (and other terms, they tend to use).If you pop over to one of the main chaps websites, and click one or two links (or google search), or however I found the following. It seems to say 'Free energy' and things.I.e. Eric Dollard, who is both the creator/experimenter, in at least one of the videos, and extensively talked about (in both I believe). His website, leads to the following link (forgotten if directly on his website, or via google search).Anyway/also, Eric Dollard website, seems to be jam packed, with 'money begging' kind of things. Just like other (typical dare I say), free energy websites.https://emediapress.com/2020/04/20/where-to-start-with-free-energy/tl;drOnce free energy is brought into the equation, my spider sensors suddenly snap into overdrive, and I get rather sceptical of any experiments they claim to perform.Don't get me wrong, free energy can/does exist. E.g. People staying in a hotel obtain it, for their energy consumption there, as they don't need to pay for it, as such. So, it can exist (end of sarcasm).I like to keep an open mind, so rather than talk about it. As other(s) request. Just build a working model, and demonstrate it to suitably experienced and/or capable and/or qualified engineers, and let them verify (independently), what is going on,After which, I will be delighted, to here all about how it works.But if you/they can't demonstrate it, in the way I described, then why not ?Sketchy video(s), imprecise documentation, lack of independent testing (as described above), etc etc. Doesn't persuade me.Sorry, the phones going, be right back. ..........................Have to go now, and transfer £22,050 to a Nigerian Prince, but I'm going to get back £95,000, once his father is out of hospital.tl;dr2If you want to persuade me, that free energy really exists. You would need extremely strong/robust and independent evidence, ideally from multiple sources. Not shaky video sources, from the same (to at least me), suspicious person (Eric Dollard).Also, the so called expert or knowledgeable person/experimenter, in the other video. Keeps on talking about Mega cycles per second (or some other similar, ancient units). That makes him sound like a (potentially) unreliable electronics engineer, or Physicist, or whatever his knowledge base is suppose to be.These days it would be Megahertz (MHz), and KHz (Kilohertz), NOT Kilocycles per second.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 07:23:19 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 25, 2020, 04:17:09 amOverunity is the holy grail of the free energy community.Otherwise it's just regular old energy harvesting, an already well known, well researched and well practiced field of engineering.I'm not going to waste any brain cells watching the video.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 07:31:27 am
content: Ok, I stand corrected, they are real nutters, not just noobs.More points deducted from humanity.At least in the case of one wire circuits and the foil, the results and effects demonstrated are real, just their explanations are crap (and probably some of their measurements).Also, hey, some of us prefer to say "cycles" sometimes (especially with old stuff) rather than that hertz crap they came up with!Or should we go on to debate why a capacitor in a points and coil ignition system is still called a "condensor"?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 07:41:18 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 25, 2020, 07:31:27 amYou can, if you want.But, if you call them capacitors, I'll think, this person might know what they are talking aboutIf you call them condensors, I'll think, possibly, this person might know what they are talking aboutBut if you call them, flux capacitors, I'll think you DON'T know what you are talking abouttl;drYou CAN use the term 'cycles', if you want. But, it will make it much harder to persuade me, that you know what you are talking about and/or are technically trustworthy.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 03:18:21 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 25, 2020, 06:05:57 amPretty much the way I see it. The OP may have referenced some sites and videos from various scammers or nut jobs but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2020, 07:23:19 amI have only looked at the parts the OP referenced and have no interest in looking at the site they originally linked. If the OP is having problems understanding some of what is being shown, I don't mind taking the time to try and explain it. If the OP starts trying to push ideas of over-unity and free energy, I will drop from the discussion. So far it appears the majority of it isn't from the OP.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:11:15 am
content: You guys are still hung up on the free energy part. I made no claim of free energy being displayed in either video, so not sure why that is a point of contention?Some claim it's electrostatic induction or magnetic induction. I don't see how a light bulb would create magnetic induction since it has very low inductance. The electrostatic explanation runs into a problem because of the light bulb housing I believe. If anyone can show me some "conventional, basic experiments" that show a light bulb attracting a piece of metal when being run on a single wire current, please do so. I would love to see more examples of this effect. Not of Tesla coils in general, but this effect specifically achieved through any means. I hope I don't have to explain how this IS NOT magnetic induction.Edit: Still no comments on the Tesla quoteEdit #2: if it is indeed electrostatic induction, you should be able to find a video or reference showing the same effect of a light bulb being powered giving off this effect.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:45:45 am
content: Although there was no free energy discussed in the videos or anything, the guys behind those experiments are free energy nuts if you dig into their backgroud.Also, we know it's not magnetism, it's electrostatics. There is probably some magnetic effects happening but the main source of attraction is electric charge, just like static electricity. (I've also explained several times why the fact that it's alternating does not matter)QuoteGlass is a dielectric, HVAC goes right through it due to capacitance. Also, I've explained how a laymen can do this twice already, with a simple plasma globe toy and a piece of ripped off aluminum foil. I've even given voltage readings to show the charge on the foil from my 4W bulb (there are also plenty of sources and experiments to show capacitance with plasma globes, not my exact version but the same basic principals still apply). I may also write a simple experimental procedure for this since I actually have not found any documentation of this exact experiment, though anyone else feel free to make one yourself on Instructables or something.QuoteI gave my theory, but no-one has confirmed or denied my reasoning so IDK.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:48:16 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 25, 2020, 03:18:21 pmIt's your time to waste, knock yourself out.Most of us have realised it's a complete waste of time engaging these people or watching these experiments and trying to understand and explain it to them why it's dead end and how they are wrong.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:55:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 26, 2020, 05:48:16 amIndeed, a brick wall can't hear you and will therefore never learn.EDIT: It is sad though that it's not a well documented experiment, such a demonstration would be interesting to show in a high school physics class. Even if it's just the version with a plasma globe and not a real tesla coil.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:25:47 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 05:11:15 amHave you tried getting a plasma ball and seeing if anything is attracted to the outside of the glass, like thin bits of foil or paper? It meets your criterion of being a glass bulb with a single wire current source at the base. You can clearly see from the attached video that glass presents no barrier at all to electrostatic induction. What's more you can easily do such experiments yourself with no expensive equipment. There's no magic, just physics.https://youtu.be/2gttW4F86Sg

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:27:32 am
content: We did use gold leaf electrometers in "high school" physics lessons.In the UK we called it "secondary school" though.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 02:21:57 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 26, 2020, 08:25:47 amNo, he hasn't, because I've already told him to do exactly this umpteen times already...

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:05:49 pm
content: QuoteI love these types of responses because it really gives you an insight into some of the hubris people carry around. "We already know everything about electronics and electromagnetism so there is no point in looking into any experiments because there is nothing new in the Universe we already know it all." Hell of a scientific spirit there.As for electrostatics, you can keep claiming "this is simple high school stuff" but you guys keep referencing experiments that are not even the same as those shown. One user admitted he couldn't find any references to the exact same effect (not just electrostatic in general). If it's so pre-school please find a video of the exact same effect!!! Not any general electrostatic effect.Edit: again, this is different from a plasma ball, there are no plasma streaks touching the bulb housing. I am not claiming it cant be electrostatic, but I would love to see more experiments showing this exact effect, not a plasma ball, which I hope I don't have to explain is a different set up

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:17:10 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 04:05:49 pmSo, wait a minute.You found some blurry/shaky, unspecified/unverified, video somewhere (from some free energy poeple), and we now have to find video showing the same, to your exactl requirements, and which includes all your possibly mistaken beliefs.I will give a a one word, answer.No.EDIT:Needs proper scientific/engineering details (schematics, exact components used, detailed photographs, detailed text descriptions, etc etc). To create a reproducible experiment/effect, or this thread, will go round and round in circles for hundreds or thousands of posts. We will get nowhere, in a slow and painful way.NOT Potentially/apparently biased, guesses, from someone who might not know much about things like this, blurry videos, showing the wrong things, no real details, and people who may be jumping to false conclusions.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:31:31 pm
content: I still love to call the picofarad a micro-microfarad (uuF).And why stop there? Please stop this gigabyte rubbish. Lets call them what they really are: kilomegabytes.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:40:41 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 26, 2020, 05:48:16 amJudging from the several responses, I'm sure that's the case (a waste of time). But you're running an open forum and it's not like I haven't engaged in such discussions before. Remember krayvonk?https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/my-own-original-oscillator/If you go to his channel, he is still making videos of oscillators with LEDs.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:53:47 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 26, 2020, 05:55:37 amFor the one wire demonstration, the two ignition coils work fine. Add some wire, foil, LED and an oscillator and you're pretty much set to go.Sadly, thinking back we had very few physics experiments involving electricity. I remember most were chemical and mechanical. I hate to say it but many of my early teachers would have known very little about it.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:57:21 pm
content: Set up is shown in the links posted.www.am-innovations.comThe guy is literally not selling anything on his site and shows you the experimental set up. "Oh but he's not a PhD who has been published in peer review journals." Stop appealing to authority, it's an experiment not a philosophy.QuoteWould the LED powered by such attract the foil? If not, this is not the same effect. Please watch the video carefully before suggesting experiments which are not the same as the effect shown. Plasma ball also not the same since the plasma streamers in the video do not contact the bulb housing.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:54:06 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 26, 2020, 04:53:47 pmWe had plenty of electrical/electrostatics experiments. One of my physics teachers delighted in using the whole class (minus one) holding hands as a distributed capacitor, charged us with a Wimshurst Machine and then discharged us via the remaining member of the class grasping a grounded radiator pipe (One Mr Hannigan, if memory serves, who always seemed to be picked as a victim by the teachers.)

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:59:07 pm
content: It reminds me of that famous Pink Floyd song:"Teachers, leave us kids alone!

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 06:50:23 pm
content: Our patience has reached 0.This can be explained by basic scientific principals. An incandescent bulb is also filled with noble gas, which we can't see if there's any ionization at all due to their shitty video quality and external light sources. (though fair enough if it was taken with an old tape camera from the 90s). It doesn't really matter anyway because there is another large charged body in the bulb, the filament, as well as the power being alot higher from the tesla coil than any desk toy meaning this electrostatic effect will increased (allowing it to occur at greater distance and on smaller surfaces.To be clear, I have no doubt the experiment will work as shown, however I don't believe this will help because you refuse to believe that this is based of existing scientific principals and want it to be some sort ofmagic-I mean "undiscovered science". So even of we were to conduct the experiment, you would probably refute the findings because you want us to find whatyou want, not what we would find. What we would find, is that if you connected a voltmeter to the foil is an electric charge. Why didn't they do this in the first place instead of jumping to wild conclusions? I don't know, find them and ask them yourself.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:13:23 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 04:05:49 pmThis kind of statement is silly, of course.What is more likely?1. An experiment cobbled together in someone's workshop using every day things has revealed some undiscovered aspect of physics that falls outside Faraday's laws of electromagnetism,Or2. You do not understand how to interpret what you are seeing?This kind of thread is unenlightening for all concerned.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:21:24 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 26, 2020, 07:13:23 pmUnenlightening is an understatement...causing us to loose another small piece of faith in humanity is more like it.TLDR

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:24:58 pm
content: Ok fine it isn't anything new. So you should be able to find similar effect somewhere? Can anyone here honestly answer if we think as a scientific community we already know all the answers? We already know everything there is to, so stop experimenting and call it a day because there's nothing new to be discovered? Is that what we are saying? Didn't they say that back in the 1900's as well?Full breakdown of effect is given by the experimenter in his post:QuoteNothing new here....we already know everything.Sure you can call it an electrostatic effect fine, but isnt it interesting? If not please share more videos or references of these exact effects. More importantly than the conclusion of the experiment is the question I posed at the top. Do we already know everything there is to no about electricity and electromagnetism?

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:26:13 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 26, 2020, 06:50:23 pmIf they use UNI-T, the meter may not read anything, ever again. I base this on my own experiments.

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:29:44 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 04:05:49 pmThis statement proofs, that you don't have a clue about science, how it is working and why scepticism is a good thing. I don't a believe in a silly YT video,that shows that someone has pushed the boundries of physics using some all-day stuff.Pushing boundries in physics happens these days in machines, which can create and handle energies in the TeV range, for example in the CERN.So, do yourself a favour, study physics and try to understand, what is going on and don't make out of yourself another Dunning-Kruger fool.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 26, 2020, 07:26:13 pmYeah, if you do conduct this experiment, it would probably be wise to use a high voltage meter/voltage dropping probe. A VTVM would probably also survive (not good good for it, but would likely survive), but you could again use a voltage dropping probe. You could also use a scope with an HV differential probe, so even if if the probe unit blows up hopefully the scope survives.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:59:17 pm
content: So if we don't have access to CERN we won't find anything new or interesting. Cool.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: BU508A on July 26, 2020, 07:29:44 pmYep, high-confidence, low experience. He's the kid in class who claims they're smarter then the teacher when they actually got the answer wrong and never payed attention to the lectures or read the textbook.Do we know every scientific fact? Of course not. We don't know what happens if you enter a black hole (besides just die). Is there alien life? Do wormholes exist? We don't know.Do we know all about electrostatics because they've been studied for over two centuries way back to Benjamin Franklin?YESAlso, one of the fundamental principals of the scientific method is that if you hypothesis is incorrect or another unforseen factor occurred is to try and explain it using existing scientific pricipals. Only when all other possibilities have been exhasted can you consider a new discovery and new theory. To the rest of us who paid attention in science class, it's a damn piece of foil being electrically attracted to highly charged body. Just becauseYOUdon't understand it, does not mean it can't be adequitly explained.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:22:12 pm
content: So on certain topics we know everything but on other topics we don't know everything....but aren't they related in some ways? If we don't know it all, we simply don't know it all. Can't claim total knowledge on sub-topics....that's like saying I have 3 pieces of a million piece puzzle but I see an image in these three pieces so then I know what that whole image is in context. Fallacy.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:23:25 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 07:59:17 pmPredominantly, (most of the time), new things, won't be discovered.If you see a strange effect, such as a piece of paper, sticking to your fridge, for no reason.It could be you have just invented/discovered, a new particle, or force of attraction, or property of Physics, that no one has discovered yet. Maybe it will lead to warp drives and/or mini-black holes, possibly even time-travel.But, almost certainly, there is a rational explanation. Maybe the fridge has got something sticky on it, maybe the paper has got something sticky on it, maybe the paper was very light, and got statically charged up. Etc.You can't just take a video of the paper sticking to your fridge, post it on youtube, then go on a scientific website, and proclaim you have found a new Physics something, and want your recognition, Noble prize, honorary Professorships, and most importantly, lots and lots of money, now.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:32:52 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 26, 2020, 07:55:05 pmMy high voltage probes all have a fairly low resistance and would present too much of a load to be of much use. I would imagine my old electrometer could measure the charge directly with things turned down low enough. The input impedance is high enough but the voltage is pretty limited.Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 07:59:17 pmIt does not imply that you personally at your level could not learn totally new things that seem really amazing to you.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:43:40 pm
content: There's also Hi-Z meters, like my old Fairchild 7000. Though agian, if you aren't sure of the voltage, use an external divider.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:57:04 pm
content: The personal attacks are hilarious."Yes of course you are an idiot so if you learn something new it could be amazing. But our physicists work with billion dollar equipment so unless they say there is something new, there usually isn't. Of course only they are allowed to say so, they are the experts. Anyone who disagrees or does something outside of their work which is different is an absolute con artist because they don't have a billion dollar machine. End of story"Great story guys. So let's all twiddle our thumbs and just wait for CERN to tell us if we learned something new. That way, we personally don't have to do anything ourselves yet it gives us the confidence of an expert in the field, although we are more certainly just parroting what they tell us.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:05:02 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 08:57:04 pmI now better understand Dave's/EEVBLOGs original warnings about this thread, and the sort of person who starts them.Quote from: EEVblog on July 26, 2020, 05:48:16 amYou were so right, apparently!

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:13:52 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 26, 2020, 09:05:02 pmJepp.Dunning-Kruger effectat work.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:15:56 pm
content: Why would you consider it a personal attack? Learning new things is nothing to be ashamed of. Actually, if you are not learning new things, I would say you have a problem.Quote from: Cyberdragon on July 26, 2020, 06:50:23 pmHere you can see the ignition coils secondary attached to a resistor then to a cap and finally, one side of the small automotive bulb. The other side of the secondary is floating in freespace next to the bulb. The Brymen is looking at the AC and DC components across the cap. As we can see, it has about 22VDC and 0.28VAC. I have just invented the light bulb rectifier...Don't try these experiments with your UNI-T meters.....

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:35:17 pm
content: Ah, a gas rectifier, nice.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:39:00 pm
content: Not sure how the rectifier shows the effect I discussed. Apparently still no videos showing the same effect anywhere or comments on the Tesla quote.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:52:28 pm
content: While I don't recommend using a meter like the UT181A for anything with potentially high voltages, this particular one has a few tricks.Shown with a larger house light and the 181A. Notice we still see the rectification. Amazing!!!

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:55:26 pm
content: Who said anything about rectification being the effect shown in the videos?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:01:46 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 09:55:26 pmAren't you curious about whether this is some new physics that might have been discovered here?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:07:06 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 08:57:04 pmWhy are you putting stuff in direct quote marks as if someone said it to you here, when as far as I can tell you just made it up yourself on the spur of the moment?Look, you claim to have two relevant degrees:Quote from: Deco56 on July 22, 2020, 04:51:04 pmSo why the heck are you having such a hard time understanding (1) basic scientific method, (2) simple, well understood electrostatics? We're not talking about the epistemology of the scientific method here (well, none of us are except you and I suspect that of being somewhat diversionary), we're talking basic scientific method, but it seems to just pass over your head. I have heard you propose no, exactly zero, theory or hypothesis to explain why what you've brought here is anything genuinely novel. Yet when others have proposed perfectly reasonable hypotheses for the phenomenon involved you keep insisting that they then reproduce the effect wholesale before you'll even consider it - you then have the gall to accuse others of closemindedness.Far be if from me to accuse anyone of being deliberately misleading, but I can't help harbouring a suspicion that your degree certificates are watermarked "Izal".

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:10:03 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 09:39:00 pmAnd there won't be because it's an unreasonable demand and nobody's taking the bait.Oh, andBoo!

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:38:57 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 26, 2020, 09:52:28 pmI hope you don't mind me jumping in, and being inquisitive (off topic as well).Could the multimeter itself be acting as the rectifier. I.e. the internal protection diodes (or whatever is on the front end of the multimeter), has slight biases, one way or the other, hence the +DC voltage, eventually ?If you reverse the multimeter leads (safely without electrocuting yourself, when it just showed say +7.07 Volts DC). Does it show a similar value, but negative ?Maybe the multimeter is giving a 'false' value, because the unusual setup, is distorting the AC waveforms enough, to fool the multimeter, into believing there is a DC voltage on top of the AC one.Thinking out of the box, a filament bulb, is not that different to the old valve/tube rectifiers. Could it be slightly turned into a valve/tube somehow ?A sort of stray effect or something.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:46:08 pm
content: I did comment on the Tesla quote a while back, he ignored me.Didn't even say I was wrong just ignored me...I hypothesised that a bulb covered in metal will still light when connected to a tesla coil because of the skin effect. IE the current flowing through the covering/coating in turn induces current in the gas.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:09:06 pm
content: Cyberdragon I doubt you read and understood the quote properly. You don't think Tesla knew about induction effects and skin effect?QuoteAs to this not being a new effect, I asked repeatedly for an example of this effect, somewhere, anywhere. Exactly zero have been shown, so in that sense this is new and different. If this is so simple and basic, should be able to reproduce it easily....

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:20:54 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 11:09:06 pmSorry, are you kidding? 'Nobody will show me another plywood experiment setup with the same effect and a different explanation so the original must be true.' Right, nobody here is going to demonstrate walking naked, slowly, through a huge petrol fire and coming out unscathed - therefore it must be safe, so you shouldtotallygo and try it.If you're going to troll, and by now I'm pretty firmly convinced you are, you really, really should make demolishing your arguments at leastslightlyharder than tearing wet tissue paper.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:24:54 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 04:05:49 pmNope, it's because every time we spend our time looking at this stuff and it's obvious that they are doing stuff wrong or simply don't have a clue, and you try and explain it to them and they don't want to listen, you eventually learn it's not worth your time any more.Every time.EVERY DAMN TIME.These people haveearnedengineers ignoring them.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:36:00 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 26, 2020, 09:15:56 pmDid you clean the light bulb first, with meths or IPA? If not, I suspect you're just seeing a leakage current. Although in that scenario I can't immediately explain the polarity of the response, but that could be highly dependant on the details of the measuring circuit. For instance, varistors are actually made of a non-linear semiconductor material, that might have some polarity dependant behaviour (pure speculation).

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:38:30 pm
content: If you see an error in set up and explanation please show where and how in the videos referenced. I was just saying if this is so common and basic you should be able to find a similar effect shown SOMEWHERE, ANYWHERE. No one said you had to be the one to do the experiment yourself. Not one reference, not one video, not one example of an effect like the one shown.I didn't say there alot of scams out there, but if you are going to stop investigating them ALL because MOST don't work then you might as well retire your scientific spirit and call it quits. "Most dont work so nothing new will ever be discovered we already know everything there is to know about electricity, it's a closed case."

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:43:51 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on July 26, 2020, 10:07:06 pmI'm sure the degrees are legit.Countless well educated people can become deluded and obsessed with things so much that all objectivity goes out the window. They simply want to believe in *insert thing here*, be it religion, some conspiracy, or that there simplymustbe new laws of physics out there they can discover in their backyard shed and that all these free energy researchers asso closeto finding it, and/or it's being covered up by Big Energy etc.Like I said, if you want to work on this stuff, knock yourself out, probably a fun and interesting hobby. Just don't come to an engineering forum and then be surprised when people roll their eyes and discount all your "you've got to see this!", "Can you explain THIS!?" excitement out of hand. Engineers have been bombarded with this stuff for generations, and they are tired of it.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 11:52:25 pm
content: To be clear and state it once again since this keeps coming up.I claimed no free energy in this thread, directly or indirectly.I did not claim any free energy shown in the videos. I have nothing personally invested in their websites either so why does it come up in THIS THREAD? I claimed no conspiracy, no philosophy and NO CLAIM of free energy. I said it was a cool and interesting effect I have not come across before. I asked for references to similar effects. None given....why? If this is so common and basic how can you not find any reference for it?If you are tired of investigating experiments and would rather just dismiss everything as prior knowledge why not retire right now from being an engineer? It is a shame you have allowed your inquisitive spirit that led you to engineering initially to fade away...

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 12:02:06 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 11:52:25 pmActually, you apparently did. Here it goes. (I am going for the INDIRECTLY bit of your reply).Your opening post, has a link.Quote from: Deco56 on July 19, 2020, 05:12:44 pmWhich says in it: (Bold and font size change, made by me, for dramatic effect)Quote

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 12:28:37 am
content: I just explained that I did not reference the websites, just the experiments. I have no input on those websites but if you are really hung up on the point I did it indirectly by referencing the sources on the same website, sure go ahead. This is not Peter Lindemann's work. I guess I should have just posted the vimeo link like I did later, my bad. Good catch on the sources, did you even watch the video?Edit: The main point being missed here, is no one is claiming free energy in the video itself!!

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 12:41:45 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 26, 2020, 11:09:06 pmI read and understood it and actually have a theory as to the cause unlike you. Also, skin effect was first published in 1883, and again in 1885, so it was a relatively new theory at the time. Second of all, you did not prove that heneverfound the cause, only that at the time of writing that he didn't have an explanation. He was a human like the rest of us, a brilliant man, but it's entirely concievable that he overlooked something. If he was some all-knowing being...he wouldn't have thought Wardenclyff was such a brilliant idea...

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 01:10:37 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 26, 2020, 10:38:57 pmI wouldn't be surprised if there is not some interaction with the meter. If we were able to heat the filament, it should do a pretty good job rectifying. If I took the time to try and get a common ground, we could look at it with a scope. If I were going to try and patent it, I may need to dive into these details but it appears this guy beat me to it...https://youtu.be/ZdSXghip7Tw?t=121

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 01:17:00 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on July 26, 2020, 11:36:00 pmEverything was grubby finger clean. It could be the meter as mentioned. I didn't spend much time with it.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 01:28:01 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 27, 2020, 12:02:06 amOk, so I suspect I finally recognize a name. This must be Peter Lindermann. I posted about him in another thread. Looks like the site is gone now. They were attempting to make a small dyno so I joined and showed them my small model I made to write the code for a larger one we were working on. I don't remember them wanted to play with me.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-708-free-energy-bullshit!/msg597247/#msg597247

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 02:11:43 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 27, 2020, 01:10:37 amThanks for the reply.WOW, that is an amazing videoSo, he turns a normal/standard automotive car brake/rear light bulb, with a filament pair, inside the vacuum (or similar). Into, a somewhat usable, valve/tube rectifier/diode. AmazingAlthough, I did have to check that it wasn't dated, April 1st.The other bit(s), were interesting as well, although I haven't seen the very beginning of it, yet. Only where to time linked it, to the end, including the battery charging section (which worries me, if the battery explodes, because of Hydrogen).So, this rectification/diode effect + getting voltages outside the case of the bulb. Maybe could explain the OP's metal leaf attracted to bulb. Because in real terms, I think the metal leaf movement, is just acting as a simple, very old type of 'Voltmeter'.Which, I think would need the DC, rather than AC, to work. Hence, it also, needs some diode/rectification effect. To work, I think/expect.Details about metal moving near the glass, mechanisms and voltage measurements:https://www.techknow.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Gold_Leaf_Electroscopehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElectroscopeWhich I remember, being demonstrated using something like, a wool cloth, rubbing a white plastic rod, to (make static electricity) charge part of the Gold Leaf Electroscope, in a high school (secondary School), Physics class.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:50:05 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 27, 2020, 02:11:43 amPossibly. Although in general, neutral objects are attracted to charged objects (which is why charged balloons stick to the uncharged ceiling). The sign of the charge doesn't really matter--positive or negative, the attraction is the same. Based on this, AC would attract just like DC.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:02:18 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 27, 2020, 03:50:05 amNow you mention it. I see what you mean. So it will (in theory), attract (pull), the thin metal strip, on both the positive and negative cycles, of the AC. So, even AC, could show the effect we are seeing in the original video(s).Assuming, the charge(s), can get through the glass, and be strong enough.Which they probably can.Since there is so much potential (excuse the pun), for capacitive/inductive and even leakage voltages/currents, to be produced. (I agree, inductive is unlikely to be the mechanism here, but I mentioned it for more completeness, of possible mechanisms).Given that in the supplied, video(s), a huge tube, many, many feet long, is lighting up, because of the very high voltages. It is not much ask, for a few millimetres of glass to pass enough charge, to move a tiny thin metal strip, like we see on the video(s).Given metal strips like that can react to gentle static electric charges, and stay charged, for long periods of time (School Physics demonstrations). The currents needed, are probably tiny (relatively speaking), so this 'effect' is probably easily explained by conventional Physics.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:12:08 am
content: If we talk about induction, remember that there is electrostatic induction (induced charges due to potential gradients) as well as electromagnetic induction (induced currents due to changing magnetic fields). A dielectric material like glass is not a barrier to electrostatic induction.Glass can even store charge--if you rub a glass rod with an appropriate material (wool or silk) the glass will become charged and will attract things. It doesn't need metal plates as found in a capacitor to do this. So if you charge up the inside of a glass bulb by applying a high voltage to the base, the outside of the glass will expose the electric field created by this charge.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:12:52 am
content: First off, I appreciate the feedback and willingness to try to explain the effect and understand this, and I don't mean that sarcastically, some would rather just dismiss it. Got to admit it is a semi-interesting effect.QuoteI have thought about this when it was brought up before but to be honest it does not fully make sense to me. First, we have to acknowledge that the bulb would make a terrible inductor or capacitor. Beyond that, the frequency of the AC current would have a period much shorter than that of the time it takes for the foil to stick to it, so there would have been several cycles of AC in between so wouldn't they cancel out between the positive and negative cycles? I am assuming the frequency is well over 120 Hz, but even at a frequency so low the period is shorter than the time it takes to attract.If the bulb is on the positive charge cycle let's say, then the closest part of the neutral tape would be negative by induction, attraction. By the time it begins to move the cycle would have reversed and now it would he repelling until induced to opposite charge.Edit: the high voltage at the bulb is AC not DC so again not sure how a charge can be built up in high frequency with no capacitance and low inductance for magnetic inductionEdit: I'm sure of one thing, someone is going to point out how my explanation is incorrect and they've see this before with AC powered light ....with no rectifier this time

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:18:16 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 27, 2020, 04:12:52 amGoodQuote from: IanB on July 27, 2020, 04:12:08 amThanks, for a very interesting and informative reply.I think my knowledge of, non-electronics Physics, has weakened, over the decades, since I last studied it at School.Your explanationand this article,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_inductionis helping, to bring those memories back.This picture is also helping (I'm being serious, because it shows the effect, when bits of packing material, you just ripped up and binned, is sticking to stuff, with static electricity, all over the place):So, electrostatic induction, which can easily jump straight through the glass (see explanation above and linked article for details), and the metal (Gold) leaf detector, which the OP's video, seems to show a form of, is very sensitive and ready, to detect and react (move), as the result of such electrostatic induction effects.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 06:01:16 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 27, 2020, 04:12:52 amYes, with aluminum foil and a plasma ball.As stated, at these voltages, even miniscule capacitance is significant. The capacative coupling is causing the plates to be charged 180° out of phase with the source and saturated with charge. The easier it can change charges to a fully opposing state, the stronger the attraction. The lightweight, highly conductive aluminum foil can easily achieve this at those frequencies, hence it sticks to the charged lightbulb and plasma balls. The copper foil, as seen in the video, has a harder time. It's greater mass causes it to lag a tiny bit, making it's frequency of oscillation slightly lower than the source. This shift in frequency sets up a small beat frequency, which at these potentials, is enough to be seen as the copper foil visably waving back and forth in the video as it gains and looses attraction. However, as soon as the AC is switched off, you can see the foil instantly stick to the bulb as there are still charges remaining in both. The leaf, while lower conductivity, is also low mass, so again is easily attracted.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 07:39:14 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 27, 2020, 05:18:16 amBe careful, this is how they suck you into their world of investigating their fantasy of having supposedly found "new science", which they take to mean "new unfounded laws of physics" etc.Remember, it's in the Topic title "Totally new science". No, no it's not.Occasionally you can be mucking around and after extensive investigation come across new explanations for things we thought we knew the answer for. Like for example, Thunderfoot's coulombic charge explaining why sodium explodes which he and his team discovered which was cool.But Deco56 is the forum's resident "free energy" advocate.Just check out his first post on this forum:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/free-energy-is-just-a-bad-name/msg858997/#msg858997

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 07:57:22 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 27, 2020, 07:39:14 amThanks for the warning.Your great experience with this issue, is showing through, very clearly.You have been spot on so far.It reminds me of dealing, with people who are extremely, obsessed, with an issue (e.g. a conspiracy theory).Even though they are a fairly logical, smart and knowledgeable person, in most areas.They can't 'see' their obsession, is somehow clouding their judgement, and almost everyone else, can easily see that the obsessive 'theory', is essentially nonsense.But unfortunately, you just can't talk them out of it.If you try, they may initially claim to show a bit of doubt. But then, soon go on the internet (or talk to their friends, with the same obsession). Which soon finds articles, which re-assert, their obsession, to full/maximum power again.tl;drAs you said earlier, it can amount to a complete waste of time, trying to convince them of their folly.EDIT: I've seen similar videos, where similar things, from further explanations, have changed. The Sodium exploding, will make a nice video to watch, I don't think I've seen it, yet.Sometimes, the crazy fast slow motion cameras, you can get these days (that take a huge number of photographs each second), shed new insight into areas, which we thought we understood.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:15:54 am
content: When you try to discuss electrostatics to a flammable substance...

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 09:41:38 am
content: QuoteThat's what I should have expected when offering to discuss this topic without throwing ad hominem attacks. Instead of offering his own interpretation, he just sticks to his attack on a subject that I haven't even mentioned directly in this thread at all.I am constantly saying how I don't think the video has anything to do with free energy, yetyou guyskeep bringing it back up....So you tell me who is the obsessed one?The "be careful, this is how the boogey man gets you " line still has me rolling. "Do not discuss anything with them! Your mind will melt if you come across any of his wacky ideas!"Notice that instead of commenting on the effect itself, he finds it easier to dismiss anything considered interesting (here he will have to reference how we haveearnedbeing dismissed). It's heresy!!!!Nothing is ever going to be new in electronics and electromagnetism guys! We already know everything there is to know so just give up now....every experiment has been done, every effect classified, every anamoly explained as a scam.....No one is even selling anything on the site that the video is on ....QuoteHow are they 180 degrees out of phase? I thought even in a pure capacitative system the phase difference would be a maximum of 90 degrees. Although your explanation given seems to be the most logical one. Again, the streamers in the plasma ball are touching the housing on the bulb, I dont see that here. The beat idea could maybe work, but I don't see how it would be extremely sensitive to the AC frequency change or how the frequency would be low enough to have unidirectional attraction.

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 10:29:00 am
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 27, 2020, 09:41:38 amIt becomes clearer and clearer that you don't understand the main point.Let me change a bit your perspective.#### Start ####Amazing Newton experiment! Totally new science<Link to a YT video where one can watch a stone thrown in a weird way>Deco56: Look! that's weird! can somebody explain this?EEVBlog: Yeah, that's a sideeffect of Newton's laws.Deco56: But this is something new I've never seen!EEVBlog: Perhaps, but it is all covered well in Newton's laws and these are well covered in Einstein's Relativity TheoryDeco56: But there must be something new! We don't know everything about Newton's laws!EEVBlog:Go and study physics! Perhaps then you'll understand.Deco56: *stomps with his feet* But I want it to be new and unkown to you!EEVblog: [...] *wanders away*#### End ####And now replace the following things:- Link to the video in the first posting from you- Newton's laws with Maxwell-equations- Einstein's Relativity Theory with the QED from Feynman et. al.Then you have your explanation why everybody here is annoyed by your claims.Study physics and in the end, everything will turn out well.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 11:25:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 27, 2020, 07:39:14 amNow that's funny!! I think when I had came across Peter Lindemann, everyone referred to him as Dr. So I looked him up and sure enough, I want to say it was in nutrition. Something like that. What a nut job. From Deco56's post you linked, he could be Dr Lindemann!!I find these sort of people entertaining and don't mind having a little fun with them. I have a friend who bought one of Dr Lindemann's comic books. Pretty funny stuff. The best part was the story of the device..***For entertainment purposes only:http://electricmotorsecrets.com/QuoteI do like the story line.*****http://free-energy.ws/peter-lindemann/

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 11:42:14 am
content: Party poopers! I'm all for free energy too. 240 euros my last electricity bill, sheesh.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 11:45:57 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 27, 2020, 02:11:43 amI only watched that part with the bulb. I'm impressed with Googles search engine. I would assume in this case what they show is indeed real. You could try the same sort of experiment using higher voltages and going outside the bulb easy enough. If you use an ignition coil, you may want to add some sort of clamp to protect the scope.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 11:51:38 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 27, 2020, 11:42:14 amI can sell you a device, which will cut your electricity bills, by 50%, and it really works.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 12:13:20 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 27, 2020, 11:45:57 amYes, google searches, can be amazing at times. E.g. You remember something, from many decades ago, so you type in a few words, describing it, and the concept. In the belief, that it almost certainly, won't find it or even something remotely similar, then it finds it!E.g. I was looking for details on this mega rare computer (or computer like), thing, that was a one off project, built by some hobbyists (Electronics), who I might have known/met, a very long time ago. Hobbyist, and relatively low key.So, not a chance in a million years, that I'd find it, but I tried, anyway.Amazingly (because I could tell the search the exact area, and other specific details), it found it. In an ancient copy of a local newspaper, to that area, an embarrassingly long time ago, longer than you might think (> decades and decades). Which had a brief (but quite detailed), article, about it.I'm more interested, in using them as novelty 'valve/tube' rectifiers/diodes. As it seems fascinating to use a cheap (I hope I can still get them cheaply), automotive car brake/rear light, bulb. With two filaments, and vacuumed, rather than gas filled version.But yes, I'd want to use an old/unimportant scope, protected (i.e. high voltage, if I have them) scope probe(s) and clamp or stuff, to protect the scope. Possibly not all the things I just listed, but at least enough, to feel confident, the scope won't get destroyed.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 12:20:12 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 27, 2020, 11:51:38 amWow, thanks! You think it can be hacked to cut the bills by more than that?

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 02:59:00 pm
content: Doing a search for the guy that ran that large site I mentioned:https://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/06/sterling-d-allan-pleads-guilty-to-molesting-underage-girls-3364690.htmlI suspect you will find many of these people have some major issues. It's odd they seem to be attracted to technology. Like our LED oscillator guy. Even after a few years, he is still having fun inventing amazing new science with LEDs.

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:04:19 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on July 27, 2020, 02:59:00 pmAs long as he doesn't do anything stupid...

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:32:56 pm
content: Yes, that is a fair point...LEDs are harmeless...tesla coils can kill.QuoteOk, I'm gonna stop you right there for mistaking a voltage phase shift for a current phase shift (capacitors shift current 90° in an AC circuit and voltage 180°).You have shown a DANGEROUS lack of understanding over many posts now, so it's time for a disclaimer.DO NOT personally experiment with mains or higher voltages! The Dunning-Kruger effect is funny in some other areas but when it comes to electricity IT CAN KILL! Not joking, we've all heard of the Darwin Awards.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:40:39 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 27, 2020, 04:12:08 amA dielectric like glass is transparent to electromagnetic fields but willactivelyparticipate in transferring electrostatic fields by induction. An electrostatic field going 'through' a glass plate will induce an opposite charge on the 'out' side, this will generate another field across the glass and that will induce a same value (versus the original field) charge on the 'in' side.

author: RandallMcRee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:43:54 pm
content: There is new science being discovered all the time you can find it in places like this site:www.phys.orgorhttps://www.sciencenews.org/For example, anyons are fascinating:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01988-0I find that there are several indicators that anyons are real science;1) it was predicted in theory some time ago but not confirmed,2) it has recently been confirmed by experiment3) it was predicted and confirmed within our existing physical framework.These three things are missing from the site that the OP asks us to look at. For my part, I cannot even fathom how someone can take that site seriously when the explanation for the phenomena do not even talk about known quantities of physics, like induction, volts, amps, charge etc. etc.Now the rebuttal could be (seems to be) that the new science is so different that current physics cannot explain it. But there are many good reasons not to take this seriously. First the site shows common equipment --light bulbs, induction coils, etc. that we know can be explained with current physics. So, at the very least, all aspects of the experiment in that regard should be explained on that site using the standard nomenclature--yet that explanation is completely missing. (What? Did the light bulb morph into another dimension where it's behaviour is now completely different?!) If there is actually new science then the site would carefully explain where the jumping off point might be. Instead, the site comes up with completely new terminology for its explanations seemingly without justification. It seems to be a science fiction novel.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:46:11 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on July 27, 2020, 11:51:38 amI have asimple mechanical devicein my living room, thatplugged into the electricity supplyhas, for years, enabled me to100% shred my electricity bills.

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:30:37 pm
content: Yay! Look at us! Let us repeat what our authorities in the field say! It gives us great confidence to repeat what they said without knowing wtf they are talking about! I can parrot what the "experts" say and claim complete confidence. Then, when they find out they are incorrect I can change my tune immediately when they do so as well and claim complete confidence!We already know it all! There is nothing new in the universe unless our appointed experts tell us so! Hooray!Can you tell me why none of you so called engineers know anything about our cutting edge gauge theories, string theories and the like? It's a shame none of you know anything about those theories but claim complete confidence in them. A person with so much confidence but zero direct knowledge is a fool.I'll leave you with Tesla quote and maybe then you can understand why none of you are string theorists or quantum field theorists (yet claim complete knowledge with absolute confidence):" Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. "-Nikola TeslaIf you don't agree, then you should easily be able to explain to me what a Chimerian bundle is in gauge theory and how and why renormilzation was justified in quantum field theory*waits for the minions to do various Google searches to parrot the "experts" *

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:52:49 pm
content: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.In this case, proof is lacking in any real form, which is the norm for the oevre.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:55:26 pm
content: Yep, a nut job for sure.I have to be careful not to play with the trolls too much or Simon may give me another timeout for upsetting the masses.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:01:08 pm
content: So throwing around a bunch of areas of studythat have not been discussed at all, and claiming that the participants know nothing about them (which you don't and couldn't know) somehow disqualifies everybody from discussing, understanding or criticising the matter at hand?OK. So, using your logic, you know nothing about operons or chaperone proteins, haven't even studied biochemistry and couldn't tell us about Michaelis–Menten kinetics without Googling it but claim complete confidence in them, which obviously disqualifies you from having an opinion on anything.Glad we've got that sorted out; I presume that you'll be following your own logic and following Wittgenstein's 7th proposition from theTractatusand "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:08:32 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 27, 2020, 04:30:37 pmYes, we engineers are following some authorities. These authorities are called the laws of physics, written in the language of mathematics.And here are some laws for you and even you can not escape them.1. You can't win. (consequence of first law of thermodynamics)2. You can't break even. (consequence of second law of thermodynamics)3. You can't even get out of the game. (consequence of third law of thermodynamics)

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:09:49 pm
content: You guys claimed to be the experts by parroting experts. You'll freely reference what they say, but you have no idea what they are talking about or what has been done in the past. Did you know quantum theorists got rid of all sorts of infinities that came out of their equations just because it looked bad?So you'll quote what the experts say, have no idea what they are talking about or how certain they are, but will pass it off as fool proof and the truth. Quote experts, claim superior knowledge, and change your stance only if the experts agree. Repeat.QuoteEdit: we weren't discussing physics?

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:13:47 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on July 27, 2020, 05:01:08 pm

author: BU508A
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:17:21 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 27, 2020, 05:09:49 pmWe are experts. But not because we are parroting but we have understood the mathematics and physics behind. Which you are lacking.And yes: we are discussing physics, because everything is about physics.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:23:43 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 27, 2020, 05:09:49 pmI challenge you to quote, using the forum's quote mechanism, the examples of people doing that. When you can't (you do understand what "parroting" means don't you) you should go write 1000 lines like a naughty little schoolboy would have to, because that's the level of your "argument" and your "logic". When you're done give the proctor your 1000 copies of "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."Right, I'm gonna go and hit the "ignore topic" button, andI suggest everybody else does as welland leave the little man to talk to himself - which is all he's been doing all along anyway, desperately trying to distract from hearing that little voice inside that's trying to tell him the truth.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:27:45 pm
content: Quote from: BU508A on July 27, 2020, 05:17:21 pmThe physicists at college used tolovewinding up the chemists and biochemists by saying something like "Oh well, that's just a tiny sub-branch of the whole of physics". (The usual response was "Well, perhaps. But we've got girlfriends and havehad actual sex.")

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 05:42:23 pm
content: QuoteIf you're the expert, let's see your published research papers thenQuoteThis is possibly the easiest thing I had to do all day...QuoteIf quoting some authority as to what is new in physics isn't parroting then I don't know what is....Notice he says you can find new things are these authoritative sites, no where else!Edit: Can someone please explain to me why quantum theorists chose to arbitrarily get rid of the infinities that came out of their sacred equations in a process called renormalization ?

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 06:16:07 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on July 27, 2020, 05:23:43 pmHe is acting exactly like a child that refuses to behave in class.Mods, can we get a block user button as well? Before he proliferates like a weed (or hopefully he just gets banned).

author: Deco56
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 06:19:09 pm
content: Those who disagree must be silenced!

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 06:22:00 pm
content: Quote from: Deco56 on July 27, 2020, 06:19:09 pmIndeed. MODS, lock this thread!