EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 09:45:48 pm
content: Are the laws of physics being bent?Dave explains why free energy / over unity / quantum vacuum circuits are bullshit. And how to find out what's really happening here by using basic engineering principles.Can a bunch of toroids, some wire, and a simple circuit boost converter really generate more power than you put in and power 23 LED's for 52 hours?He goes through the claims and debunks them one-by-one.Explains how the circuit works and then builds up the circuit and takes some measurements to show that the energy can easily come from the battery and not some quantum vacuum.This is as much a demonstration of basic ballpark system engineering, calculations, and understand, as it is debunking.The video in question is here:Original forum thread with author comments is here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-does-this-snake-oil-really-work/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 10:44:11 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 24, 2015, 10:07:14 pm50fpsHow can the quality be "poor"? in what way?

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 10:51:59 pm
content: Video quality is fine on the 1920 x 1200 display of my laptop, no worries.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 10:56:58 pm
content: There comes a Free Energy Bull. Shit!

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 10:57:47 pm
content: HA! Hilarious!He would have been fine if he hadn't come on the forum and tried to defend his bullshit.Any good con artist knows not to try to sell their crap to people who technically understand their con.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:03:03 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on January 24, 2015, 10:57:47 pmHe's not a con artist, he thinks it's real.

author: Pentium100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:03:26 pm
content: When I see/read about "free energy" devices, it's always some kind ovf very complicated circuit and always very low power. If your device produces more energy than it takes, then connect a few of them in series and power a 40W incandescent lightbulb from the single AA battery. That would be impressive.

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:12:27 pm
content: Quote from: Pentium100 on January 24, 2015, 11:03:26 pmNot to mention the fact that (in the UK) an AA battery costs approximately 40 pence, and as Dave's debunk vid shows us, delivers a max of about 4WHrs. Yet, that same 40 pence, currently buys you in the order of 2.5KWHrsof mains electricity.By that token, even if this device did posses some physics bending properties (which it doesn't) then it is not "Free energy" whatsoever, and in fact is "extemely expensive" energy!!!

author: bodshal
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:17:11 pm
content: Even a straight wire without the ferrite core is a bloody inductor. Good job Dave, I thoroughly enjoyed this debunking.

author: TerminalJack505
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:18:02 pm
content: I'm guessing Dave's circuit was more efficient than ManOfStone's since ManOfStone used a Darlington. You definitely don't want a Darlington--with its high Vce--for this circuit.If you're going to build such a circuit and you are already using a ferrite core then you might as well wind the core as a transformer and use the Joule thief circuit. This will eliminate the PNP transistor.

author: DH2ID
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:19:22 pm
content: Hi Dave,thanks for your rant. Hilarious!I love how you explain things, there's nothing like it here in good old GermanyOne thing, though: If you just feed a constant current through these LED's without all thefancy circuit, the power source would surely be earlier depleted than with these spikes at91 kHz?Calculating the amount of power contained under these curves should show that a lotless is needed to light those LED's at 91 kHz, which no eye can follow and which seenslike constant lighting.Gosh, how I love electronics and high frequency experiments. I have set up quite a nicelittle bench here for my radio amateur equipment...Keep up the good works down under, Dave!Alex DH2ID

author: Gridstop
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:23:08 pm
content: Yeah when Dave mentioned it was a Darlington i was somewhat surprised the original circuit worked. If it was half as efficient as Dave's, it's around 25% or so?And modern high efficiency red LEDs are unbelievably bright. 20mA is like 'clearly visible outside at noon in direct sun' power levels on those.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:32:39 pm
content: Please, guys, what the world needs NOW is :Free Energy Overunity solar roadways !!

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:36:42 pm
content: I suspect that the "original" circuit oscilates somewhat faster than Daves, as it has a lower inductance value. Hence it will transfer more energy to the LEDs than Daves, and hence draw more input current.....And like i said, even if it somehow breaks all known laws, the inventor is just "generating" energy that costs several thousands of times more per KWhr than the electricity you can just get from the socket in your house....

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:39:04 pm
content: Quote from: DH2ID on January 24, 2015, 11:19:22 pmThat's an entirely different argument to what is being discussed here.I might actually do a video on this, as I have access to a way to accurately capture and measure true light output.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2015, 11:56:42 pm
content: ROFL.https://www.youtube.com/user/DeironesThat guy is crazy. Well, you have probably seen his videos.

author: wholder
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 12:17:01 am
content: As free energy contraptions go, this one was nice and simple so it was fairly straightforward to analyze. However, there are some "inventors" in this space that build amazingly elaborate contraptions, such as this guy:https://www.youtube.com/user/PMMG4HYBRIDI wouldn't even know where to start taking some of his mechanisms apart for analysis. I have to applaud his ability to build complex-looking electromechanical devices. If he was just selling them as artwork, I'd be impressed. But, of course, it's all to prove he's unlocked some sort of miraculous source of energy. Sigh... One common threads I've noticed with many of these guys is to misunderstand voltage and current. This leads them to think that an increase in voltage is an increase in total energy. At least, that's how it seems to me that he explains how his devices work.Wayne

author: economist
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 02:54:34 am
content: Great video. Odd how these magic devices always require a power source. Nobody every fires one up and then pulls the battery. Wonder why?

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 05:21:03 am
content: Quote from: economist on January 25, 2015, 02:54:34 amThis guy does...It was actually featured on a discovery channel show about fake science on youtube.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 05:33:06 am
content: Quote from: max_torque on January 24, 2015, 11:12:27 pmI hope this post won't encourage those guys to plug their contraptions into the mains instead.

author: MickF
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 05:34:57 am
content: Thanks Dave, great tutorial as it turned out.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

author: GoldSrc
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 05:35:20 am
content: Damn, people should learn that "free energy" is bullshit, there's nothing wrong with accepting that you have been proven wrong with real experiments and math.Sadly, there are plenty of nutjobs who buy into the free energy bullshit.Good video Dave.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 05:47:01 am
content: I am running a yellow LED at 900uA, and there it is pretty bright for an indicator. It is replacing a neon lamp as a power indicator, using about the same resistance as the original lamp. Green LED next to it is running at just over 1mA, and it is bright as well.I ran some at 5mA, and they were bright enough to see in daylight, and at night were usable as a night light. You could play shadow puppets on the opposing wall with the light from the single red LED power indicator.

author: rr100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 07:37:24 am
content: Outstandingly cool :-)Funny thing is I've been using precisely THAT oscillator for EVERYTHING during the 80's. Signal generator, resistive touch detector, humidity alarm, light activated alarm, DC-DC supply...

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 08:54:51 am
content: Just a simple simulation.Alexander.

author: czdt8m
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 09:05:01 am
content: Great video.Learned a lot from it!Also convinces me even more that belief begins where knowledge ends.Sadly not only in engineering.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 09:07:40 am
content: Isn't the circuit essentially a standard NPN/PNP "Relaxation oscillator" ?Likehttp://zpostbox.ru/relax_e.htm

author: mcinque
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 09:49:55 am
content: Great video!

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 10:25:10 am
content: Guys, we got it wrong... the formula is very simple....1 Quantum Vacuum = 1 AA cell !

author: MrZwing
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 10:26:38 am
content: WOW! I learned a TON of stuff from this video, very interesting wish I could get my 5 min back from when I found that free- energy BS video.thanks Dave this is one of many reasons I follow your channel science is great stuff!/MrZwing

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 11:48:14 am
content: I have some magic led's, they came from party balloons. They were turned on in October last year and the green one was still visible in daylight new years day if you shaded it with your hand and looked straight down on the led, and they were powered by 2 No.377 watch button cells each no requirment fo any electronics just the led straight across the cells.

author: max666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 12:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on January 24, 2015, 11:36:42 pmBut doesn't a lower inductance value also means less energy transfer per oscillation? I have my doubts that a faster oscillator, due to lower inductance, has more power

author: number33
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 12:26:15 pm
content: I remember this basic circuit from my apprentice days. If you replace the inductor and LEDs with a small loudspeaker and adjust the component values then you have a simple audio tone generator useful for all sorts of applications. A resistor in series with the capacitor makes the on-time more predictable.The on-time is controlled by the capacitor and its series resistor. The off time is controlled by the capacitor and the 100k, so varying the 100k varies the frequency without affecting the on time and replacing the 100k with a potentiometer makes a simple variable tone generator.Removing the 100k and connecting a pair of probes makes an audio resistance meter useful for trouble shooting circuits or connecting any sort of resistance based sensor gives it an an audio output. It can be quite sensitive detecting resistance values in the MegOhm region.Replacing the potentiometer with an electrolytic capacitor and a series resistor makes a circuit that starts at a high frequency when you switch it on and the frequency falls like a siren to zero, ie it stops. I still have a doorbell, sadly no longer in use, which I made using this circuit over forty years ago. The bell-push simply shorts out the electrolytic.Of course it's not suitable for any sort of manufactured product because the performance depends on the gain of the two transistors so is highly unpredictable and it always has to be tweaked but it can keep an apprentice happy for hours.We hadn't heard of 555 timers in those days.

author: eneuro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 12:30:29 pm
content: Yep, now "inventor" of this great free energy source should make more powerfull version and send to Dave lab, while he has very nity legendary kilowat meter: Weston Model 310 AC/DC Wattmeter from 1944!Anyway, after a few modifications this bloody circut maybe could be usefull as very simple low power SMPS ?What do you think if we add 1k resistor between PNP and NPN base (to limit gate current) does it change much switching frequency defined by 100k and 47pF RC which gives about 200kHz from simply calculation and looks like it was in this range in Dave experiment?Of course we need to remove those crappy LEDs in parallel and put there fast diode like 1N4148 and make galvanic insulated higher voltage source, eg. to switch on 230VAC AC mosfets switch which require very small amout of charge but higher gate voltage 10V-15V...from Solar PV cell..Update: Maybe 1k is too big for 1.5Vin and around 100 Ohm could be better....but for 12Vin maybe 1k could be fine?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 12:30:51 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 24, 2015, 11:59:47 pmNo point, I won't change their mind.I didn't do this video for them, I did it as an interesting going through the motions engineering exercise.QuoteYou generally can't change deeply held beliefs. In this case the guy has been studying whatever it is for 16 years, he's not going to suddenly admit that it's all bunk and he's wasted 16 years of his life. Most them just double down.QuoteI've said this countless times. There is no "commercial arrangement" for product placement, either paid or implied, never has been, never will be.Yes, they were near to hand. They also have the advantage that both are small, and so frame in a crowded shot like this easier.I like the Brymen, it's cute.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 01:27:43 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 25, 2015, 12:30:51 pmI'm very happy to see you using affordable gear in your videos (and i bet i'm not alone!) big thumbs up for that(actually it would be boring and annoying to see you probing a $2 circuit with a 1GHz scope)

author: mswhin63
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 01:31:34 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on January 25, 2015, 10:25:10 amMore accurately is the the space between the posters ears.

author: bartm
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 01:41:23 pm
content: Dave,Great video, again. I'm a professional systems designer for nearly 20 years now, and I have been following your blog since the beginning.I also recommend it to colleagues and beginners. It has tons of information and learning opportunity packed in an entertaining presentation.Much respect also for the, in my view, respectful way you give feedback and comment to those who are completely ignorant or full of …(solar roadways, grafeen capacitors, free energy etc). That must mean something, as i'm from the Netherlands and apparently regarded as being 'direct'Keep up the great work in entertaining and teaching the community.regards,Bart

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 01:56:09 pm
content: Quote from: mswhin63 on January 25, 2015, 01:31:34 pmhmm.. measured it... the space between my ears is filled with a strange bubble - diameter definitely larger than the length of an AA cell... so you must be wrong

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 03:07:18 pm
content: 16 years of study?That's about a million opportunites/places to stuck a multimeter in the circuit and take a measurement or two.

author: VanitarNordic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 03:22:47 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on January 24, 2015, 11:56:42 pmI don't know why this should generate 220V and not for example 50V? and if I select the longer wire maybe I will have more near 1000V!Google AdSense attached to most of the videos, this is the free energy

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 03:25:16 pm
content: Quote from: max666 on January 25, 2015, 12:20:41 pmIt's all rather complicated! (which is why SMPS design is not straight forward) I'm also going to guess that the series resistance of the OP's inductor is also considerably lower than Daves (being a large copper tube). Hence, the inductors current at switch off will be significantly higher. Also, with only 1 turn and a massive core area, the core average magnetic field density will be very low. We don't know what the core loses of Daves test inductor were, but it's physically a lot smaller, with a much higher field density etc.Anyway, all this swings and roundabouts is really a way of saying "Unless you use exactly the parts, in exactly the same layout" as the OPs circuit, it's not surprising the input current, output power, and overall efficiency are very different" ;-)

author: Arp
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 03:38:45 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on January 25, 2015, 05:21:03 amThat loud spark threw me back a bitA follow up. Apparently he was just trolling:https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1972730961&feature=iv&src_vid=ljKX9Om7Z4s&v=-poc9JSHoWA

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 03:39:27 pm
content: Interesting video, I didn't expect that a battery would be only discharged by a few percents with a short for a minute.Recently I found another video (I think he did a Kickstarter project and I read about it somewhere here in the forum, but can't find it anymore) :The video is really boring, you should not watch it, but the interesting part is from minute 30 to minute 37: He measured with a scope the phase angle of the voltage and the current at the input side of his device, and it was 10.75 V, 1.466 A and 78°, so a power of 10.75 V * 1.466 A * cos(78)=3.277 W. Then he measured the voltage and current at the output (a resistor load) and it was 5.228 W. Obviously it doesn't work, otherwise he would have done the only thing to prove such claims, connecting the output to the input and then the resistors should still get hot, but where is the error in the calculation or the measurements?

author: Arp
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 03:45:23 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on January 24, 2015, 11:36:42 pmFree energy crowds go: "He didn't follow the original design and instead used an inductor. Probably after discovering that ferrite beads provided an surplus of energy"

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 04:34:35 pm
content: Quote from: Arp on January 25, 2015, 03:45:23 pmand that's how the manufacturers are getting 95%+ efficiency with recent SMPS designs - adding a lots of energy generating ferrite beads... while telling us it's because of EMI.... EMI my ass ! it's quantum vacuum's brother from another mother !

author: mux
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 05:50:23 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on January 25, 2015, 03:39:27 pmMyriad of things, but it mostly boils down to: phase angle isn't really a useful quantity anymore. It's from the olden days when AC current drawn was still pretty much perfectly sinusoidal.As current drawn gets more distorted (i.e. SMPS without PFC), phase angle measurements using certain principles get more and more wrong. A proper true RMS AC power meter will simultaneously sample voltage and current going into a mains-connected device many times per second, about 4kS/s minimum, and multiply-and-sum it to get the actual power drawn. Cheapo power meters only measure a couple times per second and assume that 'in between' it's probably a smooth curve, or even worse: it's just sinusoidal. If it isn't, the meter just displays a wrong value because it is based on wrong assumptions.Even worse, there often is literally no phase angle in SMPSes and other sub-unity power factor devices. The current waveform is perfectly in phase with the voltage, but it's just very heavily distorted. The cosine phi should be 1, but the power factor should be lower.This is one of the big reasons why cosine phi and phase angle shouldn't really be used anymore in literature. It is just very confusing and doesn't represent what is going on at all anymore. Power factor is a more generalized term which also accounts for distortion instead of just phase angle.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 06:21:04 pm
content: Hi All,This is my first post here, after signing up.I do believe in good science and proper evaluation and I thank Dave for the time he spent on the debunking video. So in light of this... I will ask have any of you heard of John Bedini and his SG Enegizer? Dave mentioned the Joule Thief so I suspect he may of heard of John's SG circuit.-Dave Wing

author: TopLoser
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 06:48:40 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 25, 2015, 06:21:04 pmA quick google and the first page I started to read about John and his Simple School Girl thing had this gem in it:"more aether radiant energy is being captured, but independently of the strands, sucked up by each transistor mounting plate from the heat sink. Needless to say by using transistor pads and grease you are restricting the aether radiant accumulating process potential"Hmmm... well...

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 07:32:27 pm
content: Ok... That is not John Bedini's site that is the site of Erwin-Badertscher.Anyway we see in the schematic that a pulsed inductor is rotating a magnetic rotor and the flyback energy is charging a second battery of equal capacity. In this configuration the machine will give you some mechanical energy and recover a certain percentage of your input energy via flyback. At the very least one can expect to recover 30% on a poorly tuned machine and recover very close to 100% of what you put in from the run battery, depending upon how the circuit is configured.-Dave Wing

author: devanno
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 07:34:25 pm
content: Dave, this was not only a most humorous video, but educational as well. I'm just getting back into the Electronics thing after many decades of inattention, and found that I was able to pretty much predict what you were going to say next, so I must be learning. :-)I started reading the original thread in the blog, and my eye muscles got tired of the rolling motion, so quit wasting my time reading about "free energy." When I saw that you'd created the video (at about midnight my time), despite being tired, I stayed up to watch it... and found myself both laughing and being absorbed with the lesson. Thank you!

author: eneuro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 08:04:38 pm
content: Quote from: number33 on January 25, 2015, 12:26:15 pmJust trying to make this circuit more predictableDo you mean something like this-I'm not analog fan, but rather like to live in digital world, so not sure if this change is what you talking about?It could be fun to use only two transistors and by adding some toroid core make simply low power SMPS.I've found BC557 & BC337 Spice models, so I can try simulate this thing in Spice and try to adjust R11, R12 or remove them if current between PNP and NPN transistors will be limited nice by PNP gain, but it could be nice to find a way to have similar ON/OFF times...but probably this R13 resistor will create voltage divider with oryginal R10 100k and this oscilator will not work..Anyway it looked like the only possible way to make C10 capacitor similar RC constants during charge and discharge, or I missed something?Lets find it out

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 08:21:12 pm
content: So with the Bedini we have two different things going on with this School Girl (SG) Energizer /oscillator, that were not present in the circuit presented by the person in Dave's video. First the inductor imparts a magnetic field that is used to rotate the rotor and second the diode directs the flyback into the second battery as it is across the coil. It is plain for all to see that these two things set the SG apart from what we see on the video and on this thread.-Dave Wing

author: eneuro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 10:04:54 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 25, 2015, 08:21:12 pmYep, oryginal circuit from this thread wasn't perfect - my modified circuit now is simulated in Spice and... If I will make it usable and stable at vacum, I will be able light on not a few wats LEDs but.. a few kW (kiloWats) light bulbs ...with AC mosfets switch which needs so small charge on input, but can output hundreds, if not thausands more power

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 10:24:34 pm
content: Quote from: mux on January 25, 2015, 05:50:23 pmRight, but the signal looks sinusoidal on his scope.

author: timelessbeing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 10:46:17 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 25, 2015, 07:32:27 pmI can tell just from glancing at the schematic, and all the lossy components, that it will never come even remotely close to 100% You are dreaming.If Bedini actually received a patent for his "Randiant" energy, then I'm very disappointed.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2015, 10:58:50 pm
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 25, 2015, 10:46:17 pmwhy disappointed ? half of the patents are even bigger bullshitpatents has nothing to do with science or common sense... patents are just a way of making money nowadays

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 12:29:19 am
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 25, 2015, 10:46:17 pmJohn Bedini and his machine, was broken into three seperate patents...If you look back I said...Quote from: DaveWing on January 25, 2015, 07:32:27 pmI said "depending up how the circuit is configured." You must configure the SG system in a manner that allows maximum energy recovery. So how do you do this? You simply connect a motor or oscillating circuit across a higher potential battery, with a lower potential connected in series with the load. All current you use from the higher potential battery is drawn through the lower potential battery and it receives a charge that is dependant upon the load and the differential voltage between the two batteries.Do not knock it until you try it... It works and is not a joke.See images below.In the four position paint diagram...The lower potential(1.5volt single cell) dead battery will receive all current from the low resistance load that comes from the 3 volt side because the polarity and current flow are in the proper direction to charge the single 1.5 volt cell. Since the positive and negatives are connected together we have a voltage differential or difference of 1.5 volts... So 1.5 volts is powering the circuit, at whatever amp draw the load is drawing.Try a electric motor and then an electric light bulb and see how the low side battery charges. And compare the results. Anyone can do this and see how we have been mislead into believing that we must tie the load directly to ground only and not directed into a lower potential battery before tying to ground.-Dave Wing

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:21:51 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 12:29:19 amWhy? What is this circuit supposed to achieve?

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:28:26 am
content: It conserves energy. You can power a circuit or load and have the capability to recycle or store all the energy you expend in powering your load.Take three identical batteries and arrange them with a light bulb or electric motor as a load, as the image above describes and you will see what I mean.-Dave Wing

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:33:21 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 01:28:26 amCan you point to any evidence of this? I.e. a specific instance of the input ENERGY being measured against the ENERGY in the load.

author: Mr.B
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:40:51 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 01:28:26 amSounds like a perpetual motion claim.BS meter at 110%...

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:49:18 am
content: Look guys just try it... Surely you can get three identical batteries and some type of load together.-Dave Wing

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 02:09:58 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 01:49:18 amShould I take that to mean that you haven't made the measurement ?

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 02:38:34 am
content: No you should not take that to mean I have not taken the measurement.I have done multiple tests with different loads. In one such test I took a 12 volt fan motor and placed it between the three fully charged lead acid 12 volt batteries as described in the drawing, it ran at 800mA. It started to quickly over charge the small side 12 volt battery while running on the differential between the two sets of batteries. It should be noted that the more you load the shaft of the DC motor the higher the charge rate of the small side battery would increase.-Dave Wing

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 02:46:40 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 02:38:34 amAnd what were the input voltages and currents compared to the output voltages and currents (assuming you have the means to reliably measure the pulsatile output).

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 02:54:15 am
content: I understand the difficulty in measuring a pulsed system. That is why I made it simple and gave you an example of a straight uniturupted DC load hooked between the two sets of batteries, with no pulses involved.-Dave Wing

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 03:37:10 am
content: The machine as drawn with four batteries will recover the amps you use in the circuit. It proves that an electric motor does not convert electricity into mechanical energy as the electricity can be recovered in the small side differential battery before going to ground of the 24 volt primary. Plus you also get all the shaft energy and the recovery from the coil collapse.Anyone can do the simple test of putting two 12 volt batteries in series for 24 volts and then connecting the negative of the 24 volt bank to another single 12 volt battery negative and putting a DC motor in between the two positives and running the motor to see if the 12 volt single battery will charge or not.-Dave Wing

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 03:49:18 am
content: I am not talking about a series circuit. You need to get three batteries and set it up as described.-Dave Wing

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 03:52:28 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 03:37:10 amOf course it will charge, if it has current flowing through it. But that doesn't mean that it can get back the energy expended in the load.Look, it's really simple. You analyze such a system by drawing a control envelope around it and looking at flows of energy that cross the system boundary. If all the batteries are inside the envelope and the the load does something useful (i.e. it transmits power outside the envelope), then the total energy that starts out inside the system decreases. The only way to reverse that situation is to transmit power back inside the envelope from outside. None of the diagrams you showed indicate a power flow back into the system. Therefore the system will lose energy until it can no longer do any useful work.

author: BlueBill
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 03:55:45 am
content: What the hell am I reading?

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:01:29 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 26, 2015, 03:52:28 amGenerally... What you expend in the load you get back. That is what I am saying... Do the test.-Dave Wing

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:06:47 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:01:29 amYou don't seem to understand. What you expend in the load you lose. It's gone. If you start out with $100 in your wallet and you spend $40, your wallet is $40 lighter. You can't magically attach rubber bands to the $40 and get it back after you have spent it. Once spent, it is gone. To replace it you have to get more money from somewhere else, for example by working and getting paid.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:07:52 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 26, 2015, 04:04:46 amFeeding trolls can be entertaining. Like feeding chimpanzees at the zoo...

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:09:38 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:01:29 amYou are charging a battery and powering something else at the same time. Nothing unusual or overunity about that. Keep doing it enough times and you'll find that all the batteries eventually discharge to nothing.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:10:06 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 26, 2015, 04:06:47 amBelieve me at one time I thought the same way...-Dave Wng

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:10:24 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 03:37:10 amLOL, that is the same as when you charge iphone batter from the power bank. In this particular case fan works like current limiting ballast. When you load the shaft, current through fan increases, therefore battery charges faster. This is fucking stupid, you could put the resistor or light bulb instead of the fan and will get exactly the same result. There is no free energy, you just transfer energy from one battery to another.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:24:21 am
content: I never said there is any free energy involved... Just recycling what a load uses so it can be used more than once in a electrical system. It does not have to be lost directly to ground as we have been taught.-Dave Wing

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:30:25 am
content: That is ridiculous. Seriously.The motor spends energy if it rotates (it also spends a little amount of energy has heat). That is gone.But you know what? If youreallycan recycle the energy you spent in the motor, then why not replace the battery to be charged just with another motor (instead of storing the recycle energy in the battery use it for the 2nd motor).You can then also recycle the energy spent in that 2nd motor (you obviously know already how to do that with the 1st motor), and you can then add a 3rd motor (and recycle the energy you spent in that motor). Then add a 4th motor... And so on, and so forth...Eventually, you have enough motors with enough combined torque to drive a bike. Add some more motors... finally (after you added enough motors which all use the recycled spent energy of the motors before them) you can drive a highspeed train with a little 12V battery. Do you really seem to think that this is possible, or am i missing something?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:32:55 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:24:21 amPlease keep going. You are really entertaining us

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:34:58 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:24:21 amLOL second time. Nothing is recycled. Actually energy loses are higher than if you just ran the fan from a single 12V battery. Charging is not 100% efficient, therefore when you charge one battery from another even more energy is lost. These are school level physics.QuoteDo not say "we". Most of us (forum users) do not share the mess in your head. Energy lost to ground, that is something new.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:38:21 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 26, 2015, 04:06:47 amOh yeah?

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:49:48 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2015, 04:34:58 amIf we have a fully charged battery... The lead ions are free to move and are not trapped in the plates of a discharged battery...so the efficiency of the battery stays at a very high level and we can now run another identical motor directly across the small side 12 volt battery and that particular battery will remain in a fully charged state with no further current draw from the 24 volt battery section.Do the test below and see what happens... Then put another identical load across the fully charged 12 volt battery and see how it affects the 24 volt section voltage and current draw of the first load. Let me know what you find out.-Dave Wing

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:23:35 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:49:48 amGoogle up the internal resistance of a typical lead-acid battery. Applyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_lawsto your circuit. Let me know what you find out.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:28:01 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:49:48 amHint: in a lead-acid battery, lead 'ions' don't have to move anywhere...

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:39:48 am
content: Quote from: Tac Eht Xilef on January 26, 2015, 05:28:01 amThere are no lead 'ions' at all in a lead-acid battery. There are electrons and hydrogen ions (protons). The hydrogen ions can indeed move freely...

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:45:28 am
content: Quote from: elgonzo on January 26, 2015, 05:39:48 amYou know that, and I know that, but...Hence the quote marks around 'ions'.p.s. there's also sulphate ions

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:46:35 am
content: Quote from: Tac Eht Xilef on January 26, 2015, 05:45:28 amHaha, yes, i totally forgot the Bisulphate anions (which are also mobile). But enough thread-derailing for today

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:07:08 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:10:06 amYou need to build a time machine. Yesterday...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:18:16 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 01:49:18 amThat's not how it works.You've claimed something extraordinary against the basic law of conservation of energy, so you are the one that gets to prove it to us.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:23:11 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 26, 2015, 03:52:28 amExactly.And it's not just the load that transfers energy outside the system, it is the internal resistance losses in the chemistry and battery construction that also dissipate energy as heat.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:32:14 am
content: In Italy we use to say that the worste deaf person is the one who doesn't want to listen.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:40:40 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:01:29 amBasic battery charging theory shatters your entire illusion.This is why coulomb charge counting circuits require calibration, because of the losses.If you measure 1 coulomb of charge going into a battery, you won't have precisely 1 coulomb of charge in there to draw back out because of the internal losses.If you think otherwise then you have not measured your system properly.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:48:43 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:24:21 amWhat's ground got to do with anything?This is all about losses in the load and battery internals asheat. This heat energy escapes your closed system, never to be returned. That very real energy comes from the chemical energy in your batteries.You can capture some of that otheriwse wasted energy to put back into the system and charge the batteries, like regenerative braking does in electric cars, but you can't get it all back.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:50:29 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 04:49:48 amHow about you do the test and shows us the results. Make it a nice details youtube video please with full explanations of the measurements and how you are doing them.

author: digital
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:40:23 am
content: The video quality on my Dell monitor at 1900*1200 is excellent and good old basic engineering practice wins again thanks Dave

author: digital
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:52:13 am
content: Basic law, energy can be neither created or destroyed only change state

author: masster
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:51:42 am
content: @DaveJonesTrying to debunk the ENTIRE free energy domain by ranting theatrically over a video of an idiot on YouTube, makes you an idiot too. And an asshole. Because you are mocking the memory of hundreds of researchers that were marginalized, discredited, threatened, blackmailed or suppressed by the Vested Interests.You showed everybody how limited is your thought process and what jerk you can be.No serious researcher in the free energy field will claim he gets more energy out than total energy in. There is not such nonsense as overunity. What you're missing is the ENVIRONMENT, that you presume to be empty. But if you would pull your head out of your quantum ass, you would discover the real life physics, not the one truncated and isolated from the environment that millions of children learned in school like robots.You should apologize to all subscribers by saying this:"I, David Jones, I am too stupid, stubborn and arrogant to admit there are things I don't understand. In my retarded philosophy, if I don't understand them, that means they don't exist. So I apologize because I tried to manipulate you and used a stupid video of an amateur to cheapen and degrade the free energy research domain. I didn't make the slightest effort to separate the amateurish work of a loser from respectable scientists or anonymous researchers that had their lives ruined or terminated because they tried to give humanity the energy freedom, progress, and civilization. I humbly admit I did wrong."If you do not feel the need to apologize or if you try to excuse yourself coming with pathetic semantic twisting games, you will lose any kind of respect from anyone having an open mind towards scientific progress.

author: Nerobro
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:02:31 am
content: Dave, did you check the voltage going to the LEDs? I think your efficiency is better than the 50% you said in the video.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:06:33 am
content: Quote from: digital on January 26, 2015, 08:52:13 amBut matter can be transformed into energy and is in a battery even. Wherever there is a chemical reaction some matter is lost as heat energy, weigh the coal and air going into a power station and the ashes and fumes coming out and the difference in weight is the energy produced. So energy has mass and mass has or is energy. Put that together with the 3 batteries and fan and even if it was 100% efficient you will eventually run out of reaction mass ie. the lead and acid.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:09:13 am
content: Quote from: masster on January 26, 2015, 09:51:42 amBingo. You're welcome.QuoteI'm sure these days kids learn about quantum theory and all the various aspects of it. My son will.QuoteYou mean the ones that, by current count, gave 2777 thumbs up to 39 thumbs down, those subscribers?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:13:27 am
content: Quote from: Nerobro on January 26, 2015, 10:02:31 amNot accurately, no, but it's not going to be much higher than the 1.5V input voltage.So yeah, it's probably going to be better than the 50% ballpark, but not by a huge amount.Wasn't my intention to measure the efficiency at all.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:29:35 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 26, 2015, 10:13:40 amI think he's getting at quantum field fluctuations, the Casimir effect et.alHe seems to think that quantum theory and research it tarnished somehow by a macroscopic practical engineering video about energy conservation, how embarrassing

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:42:42 am
content: Quote from: bartm on January 25, 2015, 01:41:23 pmNot respectful enough for many it seems, I get many complaints about my delivery and direct tactless nature.My care factor is zero, my style is my style

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:44:47 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on January 25, 2015, 01:27:43 pmA lot of people do say that, and yes I agree, it's probably not good to do a fundamental Friday video and use a 1GHz scope to probe an RC time constant.So I am mindful of that, but ultimately I'm going to use whatever I feel like using at the time.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:48:04 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 10:42:42 amNobody's forcing them to come here....Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 10:42:42 amAussie.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:48:32 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on January 25, 2015, 03:39:27 pmI've found that a very common misconception, that's why I wanted to make a point of that.It's actually not intuitively obvious just how much chemical energy is contained in a typical AA battery, it's a lot!A long time back I was going to do a video on showing how much energy is in a AAA battery, might still have to do that one.

author: timelessbeing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:54:16 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on January 26, 2015, 10:06:33 amMan you need to read some Wikipedia before posting. Chemical reactions do not change matter into energy. They release potential energy stored in the chemical bonds. Mass to energy conversions only happen innuclearreactions. Manofstone's stupidity must be contagious.

author: rr100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:15:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 10:48:32 amIt depends what's a lot for you (it can be for example a 250W entry-level electric bike...).But for LEDs yes, they can be extremely frugal, especially the red ones. I have a RED INOVA Microlight I bought in 2004 and I put it in the Chrismas tree way before Christmas - it was still on the original battery (in fact I didn't even had the faintest idea how to replace the battery, almost broke the damn thing). It kept going on for something like 2 weeks! The red LEDs of that type have some lower voltage and you can direct drive it with just one CR2032.Then around New Year's Eve I put a new battery (not one of the "good" ones, I have some other thread where I'm complaining about the quality of current CR2032s, I've got a bunch of them, different types to test). Is stil lit (not really bright but you can see it). 3-4 weeks after.

author: metacollin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:39:24 am
content: That was the best and most satisfying debunking video I've ever seen. Right up there with Pen & Teller's Bullshit (a debunking show in the states).It is worth understanding these people though. I see them not as irritations, but warnings. And its something that happens so often, to so many people. They get the spark of curiosity, and start experimenting or investigating. At some point, experimentally do something they find amazing - but there is nothing amazing. They simply possess a critically incomplete understanding of the physics behind an otherwise understood phenomena. They are unaware of this incompleteness, and mistake cracks in their broken half-knowledge for something amazing, something world-changing, something everyone else missed. But there is nothing there, there is nothing great, there is just unseen ignorance combined with optimism taken to a fault.They latch onto that idea, that feeling of something stupendous, and almost like the first hit from a crack pipe, they keep chasing after it with amazing focus and determination, and INVARIABLY, they end their own education. They've decided they know enough, because they know all they need to know to chase after the next hit from the crack pipe of imagined innovation. They know enough to have found this thing that everyone else missed - and believe detractors are blind to what they can see so clearly. And the idea is always one of such hope, promise, and unknown ignorance that anyone else who knows too little to know better will simply see a hero. Someone who is doing great work, will change everything. So they act as such, and suddenly, you're hitting that crack pipe while a bunch of other crack heads cheer you on, tell you how heroic you are for smoking crack, all the vitamins crack has in it, all sorts of good stuff.And that, the (obliviously unwarranted) appreciation and praise and support and respect these people garner from other similarly or more uneducated people, often peers, friends, family as well as others online, is very powerful, I would imagine. I don't know how easily I could give up something like that, honestly. It's very easy to understand how, with friends and ignorance on their side, to see everyone debunking their 'discovery' or otherwise dropping phat knowledge bombs all up in their business as trying to destroy all that, as the enemy.Thus, knowledge becomes the enemy, and learning comes to an end.I am glad for videos like this one and people like you, Mr. Jones, because maybe stuff like this will keep someone who might have enclosed their mind in that cage wrought of equal parts ignorance, good intentions, and emotional reinforcement, will keep learning how to think, and thus keep learning. I would not wish anyone to lose out on the greater wonders of reality. The people like ManOfStone will never feel the beauty and wonders and mystery of the real universe - in all its staggering enormity - wash over them. They'll just chase after what began as an innocent flaw in their understanding.And for that reason, they have my sincerest and deepest pity.

author: metacollin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 12:27:14 pm
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 26, 2015, 10:54:16 amThis is incorrect. Mass *is* energy. They are just two different ways of measuring the same thing. Please follow your own advice and regarding wikipedia, only I will provide the specific article that confirms what I am saying. There is no article to confirm what you've said, so your omission of a link is understandable:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenceE=mc^2. If something is hotter, it's also heavier. This is why objects with rest mass (or put another way, their intrinsic energy content) cannot reach the speed of light from *any* subjective inertial reference frame, because pumping more and more kinetic energy into the relativistic object makes other observers see it as having more kinetic energy, which makes it more massive, which makes it require even more kinetic energy to increase its momentum vector, which if added ups its mass even more...and it gets closer and closer but never quite reaches the speed of light. But anything that releases heat is also losing mass, while whatever the heat flowed into has gained it. The kinetic energy released in chemical reactions (or rather, change in enthalpy) is heat, which is more or less internal kinetic energy of a bulk mass of particles. Whether its from the molecular forces accelerating stuff or a piece of an atomic nucleus pulled far enough that the residual strong force from the quart triplets is overcome by the electrostatic repulsion from other protons as in fission, or if protons are forced close enough that the residual strong force overcomes electrostatic repulsion to slam together, making hydrogen into helium like fusion or our sun, it's still kinetic energy, still heat, and mass is lost by that system, but moves into others.There is no 'conversion' of matter into energy. Matter is energy, or rather, mass is simply a property of energy. In fact, its generally inconvenient to represent objects using mass in astro or quantum physics, we use energy and momentum vector because it is much more intuitive and simplifies the math. Since mass is relative and dependent on the frame of reference something is being observed from, we use thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation, which amounts to the same information. That's derived from the earlier link, so you should also read that one, as it continues why what you said is incorrect. Also, from that, we can proceed to the Stress-energy tensor, from which the gravitational field in Einstein's field equations are directly built upon. It drives home the point that matter, radiation, and fields of force (like electromagnetism) can all be broken into energy and momentum vectors:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensorSo no, mass is not 'only' converted in atomic nuclear reactions. Mass is a property or energy, and any movement of energy is also movement of mass. And as mentioned earlier, mass cannot be converted into itself (energy). When you understand those articles and why what you said was nonsense, you'll be that much wiser. Or you can simply ignore it - but then how are you any different from the free energy people ignoring engineers and science and willfully refusing to learn? ...You wouldn't be. So read up.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 12:32:23 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 07:48:43 amThat is why I said generally... As I will concede that I do not have the proper scientific equipment to measure with such accuracy. But never the less I can and will show a large percentage of recovered energy that is normally lost in the system can be recaptured for later use.Questions: How much energy does a 12 volt 1157 or 1156 bulb expend in heat and or photon losses in watts? Is it fair to assume that we can not show any input energy recovery from a simple light bulb?-Dave Wing

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 12:32:39 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 10:42:42 amAnd i for one, applaud your style!!I treat these "free energy" idiots with the same disdain as those idiotic "moon landings never happened" morons. Simply punch them hard, and fast, directly in the face. After they have got back up off the floor and said "what did you do that for?" simply reply "What?" i didn't do anything. When they say "yes you did, you punched me in the face" you say "no i didn't, never happened mate"................................. ;-)

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 12:42:25 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 12:32:23 pmHave you any idea how stupid that statement makes you sound?Let me give you a more understandable example, If i said the following:I cannot play, nor ever have played, the piano.Tomorrow i shall audition and win, the lead pianist part in the London Symphony Orchestra .You would rightly think i was a moron............All you have "discovered" is that current flows between objects of differing potential, and that work can be done when a potential difference and current flow exists across an object.I'm pretty sure you are not going to get a Nobel prize for that, being just, as it where, approximately 280 years behind Benjamin Franklin...............

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 12:48:51 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on January 26, 2015, 12:42:25 pmCan you answer the questions I asked?Questions: How much energy does a 12 volt 1157 or 1156 bulb expend in heat and or photon losses in watts? Is it fair to assume that we can not show any input energy recovery from a simple light bulb?-Dave Wing

author: Terabyte2007
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 12:56:42 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 10:44:47 amI am all for the use and promotion of affordable gear. I was watching TheSignalPath Blog Youtube channel yesterday and saw a review of a Keysight MSO-S-Series scope fully optioned up, in what lifetime or alternate universe can any of us afford a 68,000 dollar oscilloscope! The probes alone probably cost as much as my scope!!! It was a good and interesting review but in reality not practical for most of us.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:18:06 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 12:48:51 pmLook this is what we have been taught I posted it below... Straight from Wikipedia. So in light of that can we answer the last question... Is it fair to assume we cannot show a large electron recovery from the spent input electron current used during the operation of a simple light bulb?-Dave Wing

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:22:21 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 12:48:51 pmQ1: It's unlikely anyone here can answer that off the top of their head - the usual approximations and/or datasheet values for those devices are close enough for most uses.However, it is something that can be calculated relatively easily with a fair degree of accuracyat home or in a high-school-level physics lab. Want more accuracy? Go talk to a university or suitably-equipped metrology lab...Q2: I dunno, you tell us? You're the one claiming you see energy 'recovery' with 3 batteries & a motor. In your 'experiment', where do you think the energy is being 'recovered' - the batteries, the motor, or both? Note: it's not necessarily the same place where you think you're measuring the 'recovered' energy...(p.s. Its been fun watching this, but I'm off to bed...)

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 01:27:44 pm
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 26, 2015, 10:54:16 amAnd that energy is mass,only a very small mass but mass none the less.The products weigh less. Energy has this much mass: E=mc2 <==> m = E/c2. Does not matter what kind of bonds it is stored in.This is not relevant for most purposes but supposing you have your perpetual motion battery set up going on forever the result will be the disappearance of the lead and acid. All hypothetical I know but not rubbish.

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 03:49:24 pm
content: Dave; not to debunk debunking, but you talked about efficiency, and compared current to current to make the claim 50%. However the voltage on the output (clamped at LED Von, 1.8V?) is somewhat higher than the input (1.5), so total power efficiency is probably a little higher than what you suggested. Still the guys claims are just silly.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 03:59:14 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 07:50:29 amOr just point out all the commercial systems that are built to explot this phenomenon....Oh, I see......

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 04:58:07 pm
content: Quote from: boffin on January 26, 2015, 03:49:24 pmYep, inductors do that. The output voltage rises to whatever the circuit needs when the magnetic field collapses.I once built a joule thief running off a single AA battery and used it to light up a string of LEDs (ie. in series). You can easily get the inductor output voltage over 20 Volts to light up the LEDs.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:05:29 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 01:18:06 pmI just can't stop laughing at you. What electron recovery you are talking about??? That Wikipedia citation states that only 5% of energy get converted to the light in visible (to human eye) part of spectrum. All other energy will be radiated as Infrared light and transferred through thermal conduction / convection. There is no energy loss, it does not disappear, the thing is we get only 5% energy converted to the form we desire, while 95% gets converted to what we do not need. BTW what electrons are you going to recover while electrons never leave this circuit? They just flow through it.

author: eneuro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:38:40 pm
content: @DaveWing Free energy is everywhere most in heat - probably bad inductors were used in this @Dave experiment - toroid cores should be different - filled with quantum vacum which lowers down air temperature around those special cores and absorbs thermal energy, but this happends only at given frequencies, so @Dave have no chance to notice this-he didn't make temperature measurements around cores and cores itselfYou are right and I'm close to prove this in my enhanced version of this circuit shown in debunk videoYou are in a good shape to The Ig Nobel Prizes if you change those claims into more improbable researchhttp://www.improbable.com/ig/

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:50:05 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on January 26, 2015, 03:59:14 pmJust look at the Siemens Velaro train family, among them the fastest (and the whitest, if i may say) trains currently in service around the world. They just have two batteries with 280Ah. How do you think they can drive the trains at such speeds with those two meager batteries? Yes, they recycle the electron currents that went through a traction motor to use them again in the other traction motors.Also note that the trains specifically have two batteries. The second battery is of utmost importance for the electron current recycling.Go, and look into such a high-speed train for yourself. There are only these two batteries. If you don't believe, please show me the other big-ass batteries that would drive that train then...And before you go and point out that there is a wire hanging above the train, i urge you to look again. Yes, there is a wire. Many clueless people have argued that this is somehow related to electron currents. But this is not the case - there is no battery connected to that wire. Nowhere. The wire is just a safety line to prevent the train toppling over when it derails in an accident -- similar to the safety line mountaineers use to secure them from falling off the cliff. You can even see the hooks on the roof of the trains that attach to the safety line...Now, am i a smart person, or what?

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 05:54:11 pm
content: Hi Dave.I believe in hard science and crisp logic, but "I want to believe" in overunity.Maybe it is possible, just beyond our current knowledge.Anyway you hit the point with this video.Explaining why something doesn't work, gives knowledge about how stuff really work.Once I posted this question : "Why doesn't this work" (on another forum) about this picture,and expected a scientific answer, but instead my thread got deleted...Is this worthy of a ten minute video, please?Thanks.Cheers.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:01:14 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 05:54:11 pmI'm sure it works perfectly, but maybe it doesn't do what you hoped it would do.What do you hope it will do?

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:02:55 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 05:54:11 pmWhile i applaud your curiosity, you approach your problem from the wrong angle. If you start from your assumption that it works then you need to be able to explain why do you assume this. Difficult, ehh? Better is another approach. First you should specify the strength of the magnetic fields between magnetic poles in your drawing there. Then consider the spatial relationship between the magnetic poles, and therefor the amount and direction of forces exerted on each magnetic pole. Based on these forces and interactions you can then explain how this should work or not work. Happy thinking...By the way, if you use inferior construction materials together with strong magnets, something like in the picture below will happen

author: xDR1TeK
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:13:41 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on January 24, 2015, 11:32:39 pmyeh, that is an itch that needs scratching. PVCs and superman to shoot at them with super laser vision.None shall pass bullshit where the Laws of Dave reign supreme.If that guy is going to make some super discovery before any one man or woman, at least go the step of using non-mainstream non-average consumer electronic devices. After all, they only do what they were designed to do. Not like using a ZPM which is out of the Sci-Fi realm and into your electronic circuit if that actually works before you fry a section of the planet into oblivion with the quantum vacuum kiddy fairytale porn.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:14:30 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 05:54:11 pmMe too. Iwantto believe in all sorts of things...there's tons of cool stuff I can dream of that would make life awesome.OTOH: Common sense tells me to refrain from trying to learn to fly by repeatedly throwing myself at the ground until I miss.

author: Trax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:15:07 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 05:54:11 pmwhy?

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:27:52 pm
content: Quote from: Trax on January 26, 2015, 06:15:07 pmBecause without it and Q-thrusters and EM drives we are stuck to this solar system.

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:30:37 pm
content: Quote from: elgonzo on January 26, 2015, 06:02:55 pmI just don't know much about magnetics and would like a quick and dirty video.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:33:28 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 06:27:52 pmWhat I want to know is how people can believe that the people who built (eg.) theLarge Hardon Colliderknow less about physics than uneducated people mucking about with coils of wire and magnets in their garages.

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:41:40 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 26, 2015, 06:33:28 pmI am not claiming to have made free energy machine nor to know more then scientists.But there are limits to current knowledge and amount of knowledge of one person.The point is that many improvements in physics came from debugging misconceptions.

author: Excavatoree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:45:12 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 26, 2015, 06:33:28 pmSimple. They convince themselves that education from established science is mere "indoctrination." The "laws" of science aren't theories that have stood many tests and experiments and have been proven to be good models of the universe, they are propoganda perpetuated by the educational establishment. Once one believes that, then one can believe that with a few magnets, or some water, maybe ferrites or a "quantum vacuum" one can generate free energy.My therory is that the frontiers of science are so far advanced, that there is a frustratingly large amount of prerequisite material that must be learned before one can begin breaking new ground. Oscillator circuits have been studied for years, and we pretty much know all about them, but someone in their basement hooking up transistors doesn't want to do the boring research to explain that circuit - it must be free energy and these programmed people who have been brainwashed by "the establishment" can't see that.Most "basement innovation" is engineering - applying new technology in innovative ways that no one else has thought about. A maker with an Aurdino may revolutionize horse feeding, but he or she can't make the hay from nothing.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 06:45:41 pm
content: Quote from: elgonzo on January 26, 2015, 05:50:05 pmOh dear, where to start.I mean, what could possibly supply the power for the traction motors, maybe theperfectly standard pantographseasily visible in this photograph?Yes, they do have batteries. They need power to run over any interruption in power from the overhead 25kV lines and to power the train systems when the pantographs are down.For those not too deluded for rational thought there is a lot if interesting info on these trainshere- not one mention of any snake oil solutions allowing the train to run on a torch battery but plenty of standard high efficiency stuff, regenerative breaking etc.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:02:34 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on January 26, 2015, 06:45:41 pmOh well, i must apologizeObvious irony was obviously not obvious enoughI am sorry, i thought it was ...erm... obvious that i was just frolicking...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:05:02 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 06:30:37 pmYou actually don't need to know anything about magnetics to analyze that system.Simply consider any position of the rotor and ask if there is any difference in the shape of the system with different rotor positions? It should be evident that any rotor position is equivalent to any other rotor position (for instance if the diagram is printed on paper, you can simply rotate the diagram to bring the rotor back to the original position). It follows that if all rotor positions are the same as all other rotor positions, there is no reason for the rotor to move from one position to another. If the rotor is stationary, it will always remain stable at whatever position it is in.

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:06:08 pm
content: Quote from: Excavatoree on January 26, 2015, 06:45:12 pmWhen I went to school many professors confessed they never seen a DIP package or used a soldering iron.The knowledge is backed up by lots of experiments and practical applications, but educators maybe never did one of them.They just crammed it to pass an exam. (sort of indoctrination)Not everybody is like Dave.

author: Nerobro
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 06:41:40 pmThe problem is there is no misconception here. Science pushes boundries... this isn't something that has room to be pushed. We have "all factors compensated for" in this case. Down to impurities slowing down the speed of light in different traces, and the inductance of every single wire. It can all be simulated. And I do mean ~all~ factors can be simulated.However, your dreams of reactionless drives... it seems those do not necessarily violate physics ;-) But that's a story for another thread.

author: hikariuk
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:10:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 10:42:42 amWell, you are an Aussie

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:11:44 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 26, 2015, 07:05:02 pmHomopolar systems are rotationaly symmetric.Remember you are not suppose to provide energy gradient if you are creating it form nothing.Another video i'd like is explanation on homopolar motors.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:11:51 pm
content: Ok here is my video of what I am talking about. The light bulb charges the small side battery and we are free to take the equal amount of energy out as another load.So next will be how we can incorporate this system into the Bedini SG Energizer so we can get shaft energy and flyback energy on top of what you see in this video. So what do we have that was not in Dave's video that he used to start this thread? It should be clear to all what we have here.Video link:http://youtu.be/X4dJdEDwjgU-Dave Wing

author: Trax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:12:00 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 06:27:52 pmWhy, 100 k years to get to the other side of the galaxy isn't that long, haven't you always wanted to watch all videos on youtube during your flight from A to B?Or read all books ever written?Some small nuclear reactor, or normal hot fusion reactor is enough to power some live support machines for 100k years,you just need to work on human longevity and you will not be stuck to this solar system no Mather how slow you travel.And in contrary to breaking the energy conservation laws there are no known fundamental limitations to human longevity, achieving (a)biological immortality is just a Mather of some more technological progress and once its done subjecting your natural biological body to enough treatments and augmentations.Edit: and of cause before all living long enough to be still alive when this technology's will become available.Trax

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:12:56 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 07:06:08 pmCounter example: I seen lot's of DIP packages, and used a soldering iron many times. I do not know jack about analog electronics and the physics behind them. I might even made a few experiments without really understanding what was going on. But according to your reasoning i would be magically able to understand the physics just because (A) i know where to touch the soldering iron without burning my hand, (B) i can poke with the soldering iron at said DIP package and (C) can execute an experiment without thinking just by merely following instructions. No!Just because you had a bad teacher does not mean science is hocus pocus. It just means that you had a bad teacher, nothing more.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:15:50 pm
content: Quote from: elgonzo on January 26, 2015, 07:02:34 pmAh, well, it is sometimes difficult to tell humour from firmly held delusion in this sort of thread.Interesting train though

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:22:33 pm
content: Quote from: Nerobro on January 26, 2015, 07:07:29 pmI would add that if you know Lawrence Krauss than you know that total energy of the universe is zero.Yet universe is something rather than nothing.Also Alan Guth has a theory how to make matter vanish. (It is on Youtube but I can't provide a link.)So there is a hint of plausibility to free energy but only on grandest scales in science.

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 07:28:36 pm
content: Quote from: Trax on January 26, 2015, 07:12:00 pmOh, but those Lifetime @ Temperature ratings of Electrolytic Capacitors just kill it.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:03:50 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 07:11:44 pmCorrect. Homopolar motors have spacial symmetry, but they are not symmetric in time. If you move the clock forwards or backwards the state of the system changes. This is what makes the difference. With permanent magnets in the system you pictured the state of the system is the same now, this afternoon and tomorrow.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:08:41 pm
content: This relaxation oscillator circuit is actually pretty interesting, and I was thinking of applying it. A friend of mine is a flight sim enthusiast, and he built his own TrackIR rig out of a ballcap and some LEDs, to avoid having to pay for the expensive, "official" headset. Problem is it runs off expensive 9V batteries and chews through them like no one's business. I was thinking that this oscillator circuit could help him power it off of cheaper AA batteries, and also get more Whr out of each battery.What do you think of my revised circuit?I added R2, as I noticed in Spice that Q2's base was pulling ~120mA with no resistor, which seemed inefficient. Adding the resistor drops it to ~20mA. I also added a trim pot to allow the LED brightness to be tuned with different batteries.Think this would work well, or would I be better off with the "classic" Joule Thief circuit?

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:18:08 pm
content: Energy of the universe is zero. (All matter is created from nothing.)Matter can disappear.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:21:26 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 26, 2015, 08:08:41 pmYou will be miles ahead with the Bedini circuit ... I posted the drawings on page 10, very last post of the page. It can be run as a solid state unit that will charge a battery across the coil.-Dave Wing

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:26:27 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 08:21:26 pmUh huh... Well if you could go ahead and redraw that in a more readable format using something likeEagle,Diptrace, orExpressPCBthen I'm sure I can get right on it.

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:31:17 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 26, 2015, 08:08:41 pmCheck out this video:Very similar circuit but production stuff.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:33:26 pm
content: I'll be honest, I really wasn't asking either of you. No offense.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:36:47 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 26, 2015, 08:08:41 pmI have heard it said that some of the off-the-shelf boost converter ICs available today can achieve efficiencies ahead of what can be obtained with simple transistor circuits. So it might be worth checking out one of those?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:40:04 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 08:31:17 pmWhy not get him a voltage booster and an AA battery pack?http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=dc+adjustable+boost+modulehttp://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=4xaa+battery+holderQuote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 08:31:17 pmIf it's just 3 LEDs in series then yep. A joule thief is much simpler.

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 08:50:35 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 26, 2015, 08:40:04 pmYou messed up the quotes, I did not say those things.@PhaedrusJust check out the video, it shouldn't matter from whom it came from.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:03:44 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 08:50:35 pmApologies, I assumed it was related to the free energy stuff you were discussing before. Thanks for the link!

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:20:46 pm
content: No worries.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:27:03 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 12:32:23 pmThen WTF are you going on about?What's the big deal?Collecting otherwise wasted energy isdone all the timein engineering.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:33:45 pm
content: Quote from: boffin on January 26, 2015, 03:49:24 pmNo, at lower average currents the voltage drop is lower than that, I said that earlier in the video.I did not accurately measure efficiency, that was not my intention, it was a throwaway comment I should have prefaced better.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:45:22 pm
content: Admin,Well if it is done all the time why are we not using it in our electric motors, household appliances, cars and houses?Back to the circuit I posted earlier, John Bedini's circuit, it is an oscillator that has mechanical output and it can capture the flyback energy as well... Plus when you factor in splitting the positive as my video shows... The current that powers the light bulb is passed into an inverted series battery, you don't even comment on it. I have shown you three solid ways, over and above what you went over in the video that started this thread, that give you a very high return, if you put them all together you will have a motor that will run under a high amperage load for peanuts. Now what electric pulse motor does all this?Have you seen the video I posted? Here is the link in case you have not.http://youtu.be/X4dJdEDwjgUAs can be seen in the video the light bulb is emitting photons and heat, apparently that is where the energy is going, it is being converted into those two things, at least that is what classical electrical engineering tells us. So if this is the case what is charging the small side battery?Answer that question please?-Dave Wing

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:49:03 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 09:27:03 pmDifference with the real engineering is that he is not collecting anything just wasting even more.DaveWingI am supposing a challenge for you. Compare fan run time if1.just using two fully charged 12V batteries in parallel and2.what you will get when using your circuit with two fully charged and one discharged battery (which is used for energy recovery as you say). When 2 Charged batteries gets empty, run the fan from that single "energy recovering battery" and then calculate total fan run time.P.S. recommend to not discharge batteries until zero volts to not damage them. But control the moment when voltage on single battery decreases to 10V and consider that as discharged state. For experiment to be really true, I reccomend to consider "Discharged state" voltage (when you stop counting fan run time) on the energy recovering battery to be exactly the same as voltage on it before experiment was started. Therefore you can count all true run time on so called "recovered energy".

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 09:58:58 pm
content: @IanBCan you please recommend some links or videos about this time asymmetry of homopolar motor?I haven't yet had a go at vector calculus, curl, del operators and what not...So something at a hobbyist level, please?Thanks.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:01:42 pm
content: Purpose of this experiment is that at the beginning you have equal amount of energy = 2 fully charged batteries. Then you can compare how effective is your circuit compared with fan just running without so called "wasted energy collection".

author: timelessbeing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:10:47 pm
content: Quote from: metacollin on January 26, 2015, 12:27:14 pmQuote from: G7PSK on January 26, 2015, 01:27:44 pmOK lets see you guys power up your toaster with some mass.It would seem that you haven't had the luxury of formal education.In Chemistry, one of the elementary concepts that you learn is that mass is conserved.In Physics, you learn and do equations about how mass is converted into energy. This is the basis for nuclear reactions. The enriched uranium fuel is being consumed and released as energy.Stringing jargon together may work on some people, but to those who understand and have studied the subject, you sound like an idiot. Believe me, special relativity does not come into play inside a battery. It's as much gibberish as these quantum vacuum inventions.You sound so invested in your ignorance that I've lost the motivation to discuss it with you.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:31:41 pm
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 26, 2015, 10:10:47 pmNot to judge you both, but special relativity does apply to everything or it is wrong. It cannot be applied selectively.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:33:40 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 09:58:58 pmIt's really not that complicated. It you look at one of the classic homopolar motor experiments on the internet there is a 1.5 V battery in the middle of it. When the motor is running this battery is discharging, which means the state of charge of the battery is changing over time. If you leave the motor running overnight and come back tomorrow, you will find the battery in a different state than it was today. This is all that I mean.The asymmetry comes from the difference in what happens when time runs in the forward direction to what would happen (hypothetically) if time could go backwards.Another way of looking at this is that there is an energy gradient available and an opportunity for the system to go downhill following this gradient.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:46:35 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2015, 10:31:41 pmTrue. But in the context being discussed, the effects of special relativity are so tiny that it's essentially in the noise.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 10:48:45 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 26, 2015, 10:46:35 pmMay be hard to measure but you definitely can calculate.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:15:55 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 26, 2015, 10:46:36 pmHi,Perhaps you can answer this question below.As can be seen in the video the light bulb is emitting photons and heat, apparently that is where the energy is going, it is being converted into those two things, at least that is what classical electrical engineering tells us. So if this is the case what is charging the small side battery?Here is the video in question....http://youtu.be/X4dJdEDwjgU-Dave Wing

author: timelessbeing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:26:51 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2015, 10:48:45 pmYes. And you can also calculate the vacuum energy. That doesn't mean that manofstone's oscillator taps into it, any more than a battery taps into rest mass energy. You people have wild imaginations.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:30:50 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 11:15:55 pmShould I write again that "LOL"? Reread again my first post commenting you. There is an answer:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-708-free-energy-bullshit!/msg595047/#msg595047Or should we describe how battery charging do work? You try to claim something extraordinary while 95+% of this forum members (except some total electronics novices) do understand why this battery charges. YOU do not understand why this happens, yet try to claim some bullshit.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:40:21 pm
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 26, 2015, 11:26:51 pmMaybe try some search on the internet about battery charge and it's mass relation? Or better about chemical reaction and mass relation.Quote

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2015, 11:47:42 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 26, 2015, 11:15:55 pmThe two batteries on the left. Your video clearly shows the voltage across the series battery; starts at 25.77, drops to 25.01 when loaded.Do yourself a favour - look up Kirchhoff's laws.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:18:20 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2015, 11:30:50 pmExplain something to me please. If you power a light bulb directly across one 12 volt battery and it draws one amp at 12 volts. Where is the current going? What gets converted into light and heat?-Dave Wing

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:28:07 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 12:18:20 amThe potential (chemical) energy in your battery. Once all that chemical energy in your battery gets converted into light/heat, then the battery is dead, no more potential energy.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:42:11 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 12:18:20 amNotice how it's a one way journey. The light and heat disappear off into the wild blue yonder. There's no way to get them back again.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:45:32 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 27, 2015, 12:42:11 amWell, aside from photovoltaic cells and thermocouples.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:48:58 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 12:18:20 amHilarity ensues!Do you know that electric power is the product ofvoltagetimes current?Electric powerisenergy spent per time. That is: 1W = 1 J/sThe battery supplies that energy which is converted by the light bulb into heat and light (in an amount respective to the lights power rating and the capability of the battery to provide the respective amount of energy).I hope you realized that there is a voltage drop across the light (i have not watched your video). I really hope...The amount of voltage drop is proportional to the power (and thus energy) spent by the light bulb as heat and light. Or saying in different words: The energy consumed by the light bulb (converted into heat+light) causes the voltage to drop. The current is the same before and after the light bulb; it does not change at all, why should it?

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:55:36 am
content: @DaveWing: I think maybe you should try reading this:Link to copyrighted material that has no relevance on the discussion removedI *really* think you should start with Chapter 1, based on your comments here...

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:55:52 am
content: For all the wackjobby-ness of this thread there is one missing wackjob I was really hoping would show back up... ManOfStone.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?u=104008

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:05:11 am
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 27, 2015, 12:55:36 amHehehe, the PDF you linked misses the first chapter

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:08:46 am
content: Quote from: elgonzo on January 27, 2015, 01:05:11 amlol, I guess he's SOL thenI bought myself a physical copy recently. I normally don't with textbooks, but this one is so damn useful... I'm looking forward to the 3rd edition, I hope they do a good job on the MCU/FPGA sections.

author: TriodeTiger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:14:47 am
content: Thought he was a little harsh at first, but it turned in to a very informative video and he put out his thoughts on why this is BS very wellOne thought: He put this vid in the reverse engineering playlist, should it be in the debunking category as well? Or is this more straightforward BS? Should there be a BS playlist too? Heh.

author: timelessbeing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:32:01 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 26, 2015, 11:40:21 pmNo thanks. That won't be necessary. I understand the relation very well, and it's irrelevance to the subject. I eagerly await batteries which extract electricity from mass.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:40:27 am
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 27, 2015, 01:32:01 amI guess they would look similar to this one:

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:59:16 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 27, 2015, 12:28:07 amOk according to Kirchhoff's current law what is going on in the circuit I posted below. I am asking an honest question here.If you were to put the light bulb across the negatives of 24 volt and a 12 volt battery system? What results can we expect to find?-Dave Wing

author: GrandTheftAuto4life
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:35:50 am
content: Just for the interest of how the circuit designer/simulator we use at work, my friend built this circuit up and we found the result interesting as every pulse is slightly different:Screenshot from National Instruments Multisim 13:

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:38:36 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 01:59:16 amYou really should be able to tell by looking at the picture what will happen, you shouldn't need anyone to explain it to you, even if you don't understand all the details. You can also do the experiment yourself to find out, maybe by using small rechargeable batteries instead of big 12 V ones.Assuming batteries 1 and 2 start out fully charged, and battery 3 starts out empty, and assuming the blue circle is a bulb, then:Initially the bulb will light brightly. Over time the bulb will grow dimmer and dimmer until the combined voltage of batteries 1 and 2 equals the voltage of battery 3. At that time the bulb will go out and the system will stop changing.When the system has stopped changing, battery 3 will contain some of the energy that was previously contained in batteries 1 and 2. The rest of the energy that was contained in batteries 1 and 2 will be lost to the environment, either as light or heat. Some of the heat energy will be lost by the bulb, and some of the heat energy will be lost from the batteries due to their internal resistance and other inefficiencies.If you do a total accounting of the energy present in the system at the start and the energy present in the system at the end, the energy at the end will be less than the energy at the start by the amount of energy lost to the environment.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:39:39 am
content: Quote from: GrandTheftAuto4life on January 27, 2015, 02:35:50 amCan you be sure that that's not just some sort of numerical instability? The time domain is necessarily quantized is this sort of simulation; so obviously every pulse's sampling phase will be slightly different and any resulting inaccuracies in the simulation will manifest themselves in different ways each time. Try configuring your simulation to use smaller time steps, and see if the pulses become more similar to each other.

author: flyt100
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:39:57 am
content: First time poster here. I've found this to be an interesting place! I haven't been around long enough to know if DaveWing is serious, but if so, here is my attempt at simplifying it. As an aside, I have spent most of my career doing analog/power/battery/charger designs in a position where I am required to assist/teach design engineers with a wide range of experience from rookies to the most Sr. Engineers. I've learned patienceIn your example, let's make the following assumptions (you can change any of them and rework the math, it doesn't change the results, this just makes the numbers work out simply in your head).1. Let's ignore parasitics (battery ESRs, charging efficiency, etc.)2. Your "source" batteries on the left are 1.5V each.3. Your "charging" battery is at 1.5VThis means 1.5V across the motor (3V -1.5V). Let's say that with the mechanical load and 1.5V across the motor, the current is 1A. This means 1A through everything in the loop.So, you are sourcing 3V*1A=3W. The motor is using 1.5V@1A=1.5W and the "charging" battery is also using/accepting 1.5V@1A=1.5W. You are sourcing 3W, and using 3W. What is the mystery?

author: GrandTheftAuto4life
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 03:24:15 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on January 27, 2015, 02:39:39 amIt seems pretty consistent.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:02:20 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 27, 2015, 02:38:36 amAnd to do that you could discharge the batteries completely after the test and log the results to find out how much energy was left in them. And along with knowing how much energy was in the original batteries to begin with, and also the log of the load power over time, you'll get the result as IanB states.For a ballpark measurement you could likely ignore the battery and charging losses.DaveWing should do this before talking any more about this subject, it's just getting painful.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:03:45 am
content: Quote from: flyt100 on January 27, 2015, 02:39:57 amHe's serious, he just has no ability to understand what is happening here.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:28:32 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 27, 2015, 04:03:45 amI have the ability to learn and understand... My pride does not get in the way of learning something new or being corrected if and when I am wrong. I will do the required testing and report back my findings.-Dave Wing

author: mswhin63
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:44:20 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 05:28:32 amDaveWing, I think you need to go back to school. You have really missed the plot. I noticed that your 12V battery left any longer without a load would have exploded especially after seeing the voltage rise above 15V. Maybe it would have been a good idea to leave it running and let the out gassing pour and maybe would have seen some sense.The only thing that allow people to believe there is something else mysterious is that there is no real interrelating theory between the large and the small. What you are trying to do here is say you have proved it. Don't bring this kind of shit to an engineering forum instead it needs to go back to science forums, tell them you have cracked the theory of the small and watch them laugh you out of existence.

author: steve_w
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:43:50 am
content: Thanks Dave,Haven't had such a laugh in a long while.regardsSteve w

author: Trax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:47:53 am
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 26, 2015, 07:28:36 pmBullshit, you of cause use some machine with self repair capabilities, for example a system that contains recycling and manufacturing plants and a few hundred drones to operate and repair/replace broken parts.And of cause the drones would also be subject to replacement/repair.Also coming back to your initial assertion:QuoteWhy do you think you need overunity to leave the solar system?Why not just use some good old space warping drive that can operate on some amount of energy you can generate by normal means like hot fusion or from a tank of anti mater?At what point would you be Dependant on an infinite energy source?Trax

author: RobertoLG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:21:48 am
content: no ZPM?

author: vlad777
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:51:19 am
content: @TraxYou have proposed many amazing technologies but I proposed just one.Not that I don't like a good sci-fi setup.100K years is just too much, any technology you put in your space ship would be obsolete in 20 years.Look at Rosetta spacecraft, it has a camera of 4 megapixels because 10 years ago they couldn't do better.And also there are 100 billion other galaxies.

author: SaintGimp
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 08:08:44 am
content: What I never understand about free energy/overunity people is why they work so hard to convince everyone else on the basis of silly Youtube videos and the like. If they've got something real, then just build a house-scale system, disconnect from the grid, call the news reporters a year later, and collect your Nobel Prize and billions in royalties.But instead all the passion goes into convincing everyone that there's some kind of conspiracy to keep us all oppressed or something. They just sit around saying, "Yes sir, everything would be awesome except for the bloody oil companies suppressing the truth!"I think many of these people really do believe the nonsense they push, at least on the surface. But the reason why no one ever builds anything practical (i.e. solves a real-world problem over significant periods of time) is because deep down they suspect that maybe it doesn't really work. Theyintuitivelyunderstand that the shortest path to cashing out with some money is always convincing some foolish investor on the strength of a charismatic pitch rather than the strength of, say, not having paid any electric or fuel bills lately.Just build the damn thing and have done with it already.And Dave, your rants are always entertaining, but this video also taught me a lot about circuit analysis and inductors so thumbs up both ways!

author: IshtarTor
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:24:16 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 26, 2015, 10:42:42 amI like it like that. It's way more fun. Those who are "offended" are those who feel attacked by the content of the video, because you show their ignorance in full light. And it's worthwhile because it's an informative video.Keep it like this, no bullshit is the right way.And yes, I subscribed just to say that.

author: Don Hills
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:37:20 am
content: Dave Wing, I'm trying to understand your circuit.- 3 12 volt batteries, 1 amp-hour capacity.- A fan that draws 1 amp when 12 volts is applied to it.- Wire them up according to your diagram.- For simplicity, let us assume perfect batteries. If you allow a current of 1 amp to flow, they will take 1 hour to discharge. If you apply a charging current of 1 amp, they will take 1 hour to charge. (I wish...)Dave, can you enlighten me by answering these 5 questions?1: How long will the fan run before the 2 batteries go flat?- When the 2 batteries run flat, attach the fan across the 3rd battery.2: How long will it run for?3: What is the total time of the two runs?4: The second run is powered by the energy recovered during the first run - energy that would have otherwise been lost. It's the same energy that was used by the fan in the first run. Is that correct?- Now recharge the 2 batteries. Connect them in parallel, not series. Connect the fan across them.5: How long will the fan run for?Regards...

author: IshtarTor
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:42:01 am
content: Quote from: timelessbeing on January 27, 2015, 01:32:01 amIt's an atomic pile, also called an atomic reactor. It doesn't extract electricity, but energy from the fission of atoms, which is used to heat water vapor, which is then converted to electrity via turbines. Apart from chemical reactions, there is no physical effect that allows direct conversion from mass to electric energy AFAIK.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:46:59 am
content: Quote from: SaintGimp on January 27, 2015, 08:08:44 amBecause they don't workLike these losers nobody ever heard from again:

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:54:54 am
content: Quote from: IshtarTor on January 27, 2015, 10:24:16 amThat was my intention, make it an informative video. I could have done a Blab video and just shout and scream facepalm, but that would have been a waste of time because:a) these people don't careandb) it's not technically informative

author: MBY
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 12:56:24 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 12:18:20 amAaargh! Kirchhoff's current law is not a power or energy law! How can a bulb glow, if the current into the wire before it is 1 amp, and the current out of the wire is 1 amp?Your question is fundamentally wrong. Nothing besides the chemical energy in the batteries are converted to light and heat, and the current return path is retardedly hindered by a back-to-front battery needing another battery to compensate!Naturally the low side back-to-front battery will charge. If the lamp produce 12 watt, the battery will be charged with about the same, at the expense of 24 watt from the two batteries powering the circuit.There is nothing to be "reused". Your circuit doesn't reuse any energy at all, it only usesmoreenergy than needed. Yes, you CAN reuse energy in some circumstances, like regenerative braking but your circuit has non of it.You will get more light and heat if you put all those batteries in parallel, at least the two batteries powering the lamp and strip away your silly back-to-front battery.There is nothing to be explained really. You lighting up a bulb and charing one battery with two batteries. The light and heat have nothing to do with the charging, it is not the "same energy" and nothing is reused. On the contrary, your losses are greater comparing with no charging of any battery.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:04:11 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 01:59:16 amBatteries 1+2 will drain, the lamp will light, battery 3 will charge.Energy will be lost to the environment as heat and light (mainly heat I suspect - the batteries will warm up).Maybe I'm a bit slow, but ... is something unexpected/miraculous supposed to happen?

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 01:51:40 pm
content: As far as i can tell Dave Wings misunderstanding seems to be thinking that "current" is power. He is saying that if 1 amp goes in, and 1 amp comes out, then no "energy" has been "lost".Of course, this is incorrect, as previously mentioned. So, Lets assume Dave W is a moron, and try and explain it to him in simpler terms. For this, i am going to replace "current" with "weight" and "voltage" with "gravity" (height)So Dave, concentrate, here comes the (not much) science!Here is an escalator:Normally used to move people up and down in buildings, they usually take electrical power and use that to move the steps fixed to a continuous conveyor. Hopefully you can see / understand roughly how they mechanically function?Now, lets not power the escalator, but use the motor as a generator, and simply attach a lightbulb to the wires of the motor.Statically, nothing will happen, because the mass of the conveyor is balanced (with say 30 evenly weighted steps hanging on each side of the pulley that the motor is attached too).But now, lets put a 50kg weight on a step on the top side. Now the system is unbalanced, and the converyor will start to move, turn the generator and light the lamp. Until of course, that weight gets to the bottom of the escalator and slides off. Att which point the steps will stop turning and the lamp will go out.With me so far?Now, instead of putting just one weight on the steps, lets keep putting them on. Everytime a "new" step comes up and around, lets put a 50kg weight on it. Now the system keeps turning, we keep adding weights, and they keep falling off the bottom one at a time. The lamp is lit all the time, as the steps keep turning. But we are not changing the weights in any way,just like your electrical circuit doesn't change the "Current" in any way, and yet power IS being extracted from the system.In the case of our weight powered escalator, the power we can generate depends on the mass of the weights we add, and how far they can fall under the force of gravity. Add more weights or add them higher up and more work is done. In effect, the weights are the "Current" and the height they come down from the "Voltage difference". In all cases, if you stop adding weights, say because you are tired, the system will stop and no power will be generated. And in all cases, the weights (the current) are not changed by the process, just moved to a different (lower) location, and some other entity will need to add external "power" to keep the process running (in this case, you, carrying the weights back up to the top one at a time)Hepefully, this mechanical analogy might help you understand that Power or Work Done, is the product of Current and Voltage (P = V x I), and that considering just current or just voltage is not sufficient to be able to establish the work done in circuit.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:03:38 pm
content: I have documented evidence that free energy does exist.12 years ago I moved into a new house, got all the utility connected and did not receive an electricity account until they decided to install a smart meter 2 years ago.We had free energy for 10 years, so there you go.They could only bill us for the prior 9 months based on the forward 3 month average, so we read books by candle light or a couple of months until a bill turned up for sweet FA.Muttley

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:14:18 pm
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on January 27, 2015, 02:03:38 pmI got free energy at the lab for the first year until they realised someone had moved in...

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 02:25:27 pm
content: I miss running the lathe, mill, CNC, welder and all my other toys in the way that I used to.Bloody smart meters killed all the fun.Muttley

author: MikeM100
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:13:49 pm
content: Hi Guys,Such was my interest on this topic that I registered and this is my first post !So, why don't we organise a 'competition' to see how much 'light' someone can get out an AA battery ?We would just need to specify a battery and a means of measuring the total light out ?Any means of doing so but probably exclude 'nuclear' (e = mc2options !Anyone up for it

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:22:40 pm
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on January 27, 2015, 02:03:38 pmNo everyone that is currently buying energy from that energy corporation is now paying something extra for that energy you used.You could do this every month, just don't pay the bill on odd months but pay it together with the new bill on the even months. In your universe you will have free energy every odd month

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:26:48 pm
content: Quote from: MikeM100 on January 27, 2015, 04:13:49 pmThis would need to be an even playing field and the first constraints that come to mind are how do we all simultaneously synchronise our measurement equipment, and how will every participant maintain an equal temperature globally.I normally dont throw spanners, ever.Muttley

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:41:05 pm
content: Quote from: MikeM100 on January 27, 2015, 04:13:49 pmYou need to define the term "how much light". Are we talking maximum brightness? Average lumens over X amount of time? Longest battery life? And then decide how that will be measured. Dictate a common battery and LED. Probably all devices would need to be tested by one person with the equipment who can do an unbiased test.I like the idea though. Could make a contest out of it. And the free energy chumps could join in and see if their quantum vacuum fairy dust can beat out some good-old-fashioned math and engineering.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:41:42 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 27, 2015, 04:22:40 pmBullshit,No, every individual customer is billedbased only on their usage and supply service charge.The second part of your question with all due respect,does not make senseis not understood by me at all.Muttley

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 04:52:54 pm
content: Quote from: MikeM100 on January 27, 2015, 04:13:49 pmThere is probably no single brand/model of AA cell that is available everywhere.And even if there were, there is no way of knowing whether the total capacity (WH) is the same in all places.Or even how fresh the cells are when/where you buy them.Might be easier to simply specify a given power (voltage, current) and take the battery chemistry/freshness out of the equation.And there is the matter of specifying many terms and conditions: monochromatic vs. "white"And, given how LEDs produce "white", what is the definition of "white" anyway?And then, as you mention, there is the matter of calibrating light measurement.Do you want to go into the business of selling calibrated sensors?And then how do you select a sensor that would be impartial to all wavelengths?Not impossible, but there are several interesting challenges to resolve.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:00:37 pm
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on January 27, 2015, 04:41:42 pmBuilt into their cost of doing business is "stock shrinkage" which includes unexplained loads (a single private home is probably "down in the noise"), but even greater (and more constant) is simply losses through the transmission system between the source and all the loads.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 27, 2015, 04:41:05 pmWe already know the answer to that question.We also know the "chumps" won't change their magical thinking one iota, no matter what the result is. They know that real-life experiments are irrelevant because the big breakthrough in magic energy is "just around the corner". All it needs is a bit more fiddling around with magnets to achieve it...PS: Unfortunately LED efficiency has passed sodium-vapor lamps. Lighting a sodium-vapor lamp with an AA battery would be an interesting challenge.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:21:12 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 27, 2015, 04:52:54 pmYep. There's no way a real-life battery could be used, you'd have to specify a voltage, eg. 1.2V and let people go with that.According to Wikipedia the theoretical limit for white LEDs is about 260-300 lm/W:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2Cree claim to already be there:http://www.cree.com/News-and-Events/Cree-News/Press-Releases/2014/March/300LPW-LED-barrierSo... the competition would therefore be who can build the most efficient voltage booster to light up a Cree LED using a 1.2V input. I don't think the engineering for that will surprise many people.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:25:25 pm
content: You couldn't specify *just* a voltage, or you could hook up a 30A supply and light up a whole bank of LEDs.I honestly think the best way would be to specify a specific LED and a specific battery, and have the contestants send their circuits in to the contest runner for the testing. They can just pick whatever batteries are available for them, it shouldn't matter as long as they're reasonable quality and all the same.I think we could also make it more interesting by putting additional restrictions, for instance maximum of 8 components, etc. Then measure both light intensity and battery life.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:26:30 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 27, 2015, 05:00:37 pmI fully understand stock shrinkage, it is a part of what I do.From what I heard, this non billing of hundreds of customers was an oversight by a number of electricity providers, and even early in the peace we notified them on many occasions that we hadn't received an account, nothing ever got attended to, so we gave up trying.We were expecting a bill for around eight grand and would have happily paid it, but it turned out that legally they couldnot request any more than 9 months worth prior. I still feel really guilty to this day.All good now though.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 05:52:27 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 27, 2015, 05:25:25 pmWe were talking about an AA battery.Battery datasheets will tell you the discharge curve/expected lifetime at different current drains.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:01:12 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 27, 2015, 02:38:36 amSo how much battery capacity (a rough guess will suffice) will battery 3 receive from batteries 1&2, provided they all have the same amp hour capacities when fully charged?So if battery 3 does receive a percentage, in the form of actual battery capacity from batteries 1&2 is that not better than the conventional model that directly loses all and recaptures none of the battery capacity it uses?What would happen if you connect a capacitor in place of the battery number 3? Could you not power the bulb for a certain time period or until the capacitor potential equalizes with the two batteries 1&2. When the capacitor equalizes disconnect the cap from the circuit and power the light again until the cap is discharged. Repeat process over and over. Yes there will be losses but not much,you input one part energy and used very close to two parts energy.I will post a video showing the losses in the system, just like Dave has requested, shortly.-Dave Wing

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:14:17 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on January 27, 2015, 05:25:25 pmRight. Which is why I said: "power(voltage, current)"

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 06:51:09 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 06:01:12 pmWell....yes, but you had to use TWO batteries (1+2) to do that.If you take out battery 3 then you can also take out battery 2 and still light the lamp. Overall this will be more efficient because the initial charging of battery 2 is lossy and so is the charging of battery 3 when the circuit is running.Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 06:01:12 pmTheaveragelight output will be halved because the voltage across it is constantly ramping up/down between 0 and 24V.ie. There's no real-world gain.

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:26:55 pm
content: QuoteFirst, I'm going to use a resistor as a crude approximation for a light bulb. If I understand your hypothesis correctly, the exact load doesn't matter anyway. So we have this circuit:When power is applied, the capacitor is fully discharged so R1 gets the full voltage applied to it, and the maximum current begins to flow. But this current begins charging the capacitor, and the capacitor voltage begins to rise. This rising voltage means there's less voltage across the resistor (the sum of the voltages must be the battery voltage), so the current drops. Eventually the capacitor is charged up.We can already see something you I'm not sure you were accounting for: the "bulb" isn't going to be at full brightness very much (the yellow line.) But now let's do the analysis thatIanBtalked about: energy in and energy out. The question here is how much energy did that take from the battery, and how much energy was used by the bulb? Since current was changing constantly over time, the math is a little non-trivial. Multiplying the current curve by the voltage gives you power, and then integrate that to get energy. This is NOT just a current analysis!We'll treat battery voltage as constant for now and ignore the other "minimal losses" you talked about. There is a well-known formula for capacitor charging, so I can do this quite precisely. With the values I used in the above schematic, the battery supplies 1.44mJ in the time it took to charge the capacitor. How about output? How much energy ends up in the capacitor? This works out to 0.72mJ. Not surprisingly, doing the calculus to figure out how much energy was dissipated by the resistor yields 0.72mJ. So it all adds up: half the energy from the battery went to the "light bulb" and half to the capacitor. Now you propose dumping the capacitor energy into the light bulb, which is fine. The energy still came from the battery initially. Energy in = Energy out.That's not to say the circuit doesn't have interesting properties. Pulsing the load like this is a form of switching dc to dc converter, and there are situations where they are quite useful.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:38:15 pm
content: Quote from: Galaxyrise on January 27, 2015, 07:26:55 pmResistive load selection is important, the less the internal resistance the better and more efficient the energy transfer. The diagram as seen below and the videohttp://youtu.be/X4dJdEDwjgUI posted was not meant to be run as a continuous closed loop system... It was meant to be a pulsed based open loop system. I only ran it closed loop to demonstrate that recovery is very possible, also I wanted to raise the question why we are not doing it with our large powered systems that we use everyday in our daily lives.Thank you for the reply.-Dave Wing

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:50:46 pm
content: Another great video Dave! I thoroughly enjoyed the explanations and bringing things back to science! Too often the uninformed public without any science and particularly physics or engineering education are misled by the media, by people who wish to profit, and sometimes unintentional "believers" who don't understand what is going on and resort to mystical explanations rather than picking up a good book on fundamental theories.One thing I did NOT do is click on the original free energy video that you linked because the last thing I wanted to do is to increase their YouTube video hits, which I assume are monetized. By watching the original video they would just gain more Adsense profits.Anyways, excellent video as always!

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:56:06 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 07:38:15 pmWell, let's try it with a 1000 ohm resistor. The energy that ends up in the capacitor will still be 0.72mJ because that's how much energy the 10u capacitor can store at 12V. And the energy drawn from the battery... calculus... 1.44mJ. Same as with the 10 ohm resistor! The difference is that it takes much longer.

author: MBY
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 07:57:35 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 06:01:12 pmBut no!!!To be ignorant is one thing, we are all here to learn something. But you maintain your delusion even when we point it out to you that you will not gain anything, and that's worrisome. You have mixed up the notions of current, voltage, power and energy and this is nothing that's is open for discussion. You are simply wrong.If you by "part of energy" mean the energy consumed by the bulb when charging the capacitor, you have used two such "parts". One for the bulb, one for the charging. That the bulb is in series with the caps doesn't come in to the equation. So, assuming no losses whatsoever, charing a cap and use the cap to drive a bulb is just a very stupid and convoluted way of drive the bulb.You cannot save an attojoule with your scheme. You clearly need to go back to basics and learn Ohms law, the power law, the relationship between power and energy and realize that a conductor transmitting electrical energy is not the same thing as using this energy. And, you cannot use Krichhoff's current law locally to measure energy of a whole system globally.You sir are dead wrong. Totally wrong. There is no discussion at all. Your scheme isn't even reminiscent of real power saving ideas like reusing braking energy. There isnothing, absolutely nothingin your idea that will save, conserve or make clever use of energy. The only thing your scheme does, ismaximizing losses. Period.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 08:01:59 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 27, 2015, 04:02:20 amHi Admin,Sorry for the pain you receive on my account.I tried to make a video as per your request.In any event I hope that this video will help me to understand some of my misconceptions. So here it is please offer up any comments all are welcome to put in their two cents... As they have so done before.Here is two diagrams one of a conventional system and the other is... After watching the video... Well you decide.Regarding the video please excuse my rough delivery. Thanks for watching...http://youtu.be/K6CpDaksxh0-Dave Wing

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 08:05:02 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 07:38:15 pmWaffle. Zero information content.Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 07:38:15 pmWhat conclusions did you draw from it?(If you're still raising the question "why we are not doing it with our large powered systems that we use everyday in our daily lives" then I guess 'not much'... )

author: Trax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 09:02:03 pm
content: Quote from: vlad777 on January 27, 2015, 07:51:19 amWell what I am proposing is technology that is realizable in accord with the laws of physics, what you are proposing is to the best of the words knowledge impossible.It is irrelevant if the technology will be out dated in 100k years if its done right at the day of manufacturing it will be still working in 100k years and thats all that matters.Also you ignored the fact that for leaving out solar system with FTL speeds we don't need infinite power but we need some loop whole drive that would bypass the limitations set forth by the theory of relativity, ...Over unity is for all intents and purposes a nice to have but by no means necessary for us to leave the solar system.Your argumentation is flawed in any conceivable way sorry...

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:04:07 pm
content: The other HUGE problem with all these "free energy" ideas is that nobody actually understands what "free energy" really means. For example, how many times does someone claim they are gaining "energy" from *nothing* when it is actually just converting something else that is not obviously apparent.For example, even in this example of the LEDs... what "energy" is actually being created? A bunch of dim red photos popping out of 23 LEDs as a result of work done by a AA battery with a comparatively large amount of chemical potential energy still stored in it. I still see a chemical reaction losing potential while photons are gained. Overall net loss anyways due to the inefficiency of the system, heat loss, etc.Even in cases where energy appears to be freed from nothing, if you look closer at the system you may find perhaps it is a nuclear reaction. No matter where you look, the conservation laws of physics are still there. No exception. Even if you could blame it on some "quantum" gobbledegook winkidinky, it is still coming from there... it is not "FREE" because conservation must always be observed. Nothing in life is FREE.

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:19:06 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 08:01:59 pmI'm not going to comment on the schema and theories, but I'd like to give you two off-topic 'A's:1 for guts and bravery: kudos on you to stand up and work along in this conversation1 for the video and voice quality : it was easy to watch and listen to.

author: GlowGale
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 10:44:06 pm
content: Hi Dave,Your video had me laughing so much I had to come to the forum and say hi!Man, his original posts are real troll nuggets. Throwing around unrelated terminology & using fancy terms to disguise his lack of circuit knowledge. The funny thing is he could have used one toroid with 3 windings and it would work better with less space than a stack of 5 toroids. Although I heard quantum vacuum energy sticks better to black tape...If you have a metric ton of cash laying around, the most hardcore way to debunk most of these circuits would probably be to measure the outbound energy flux (mostly heat & light, also electrical parasitics?) and integrate it over the battery lifespan. That amount of shed energy would be equal to the chemical energy capacity of the AA-cell and everything's dandy according to the law of energy conservation.Of course, the electrical way to debunk is a lot more interesting. Many thanks for the big refresher on how these boost converters work!Greetings,GlowGale

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 11:00:52 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 08:01:59 pmI see one immediate (and major) flaw: Capacitor charging isnotlinear. Adding together the three voltages at the end doesnottell you that the total energy in the system is the same.Energy in a capacitor is proportional to the square of the voltage.24.9 * 24.9 = 620(7.92 * 7.92) * 3 = 188So the total energy in the system went down by about 70% when you lit up the bulb (from 620 to 188)http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng2.htmlQuote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 08:01:59 pmDelivery, camera, lighting, etc. was perfect: 10/10

author: morrone
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 11:06:08 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 08:01:59 pmBefore we can explain more complicated circuits to you, you are going to have to take some time to understand the basics. Consider this circuit:There will be 1.2A flowing in this circuit. The same current flows through both resistors. It does not change since these parts are in series. If the two resistors were wired in parallel, then the current would be split between them. But they are not wired in parallel; they are wired in series.While the current remains the same, the voltage drop over each in-series component will be different. And the sum of the voltage drops across the in-series components will be equal to the total voltage supplied by the battery.In this example, since the resistors have exactly the same value, exactly half of the voltage will drop across R1 and the other half of the voltage will drop across R2. The battery is supplying 24V, so the voltage drop across each of the resistors is 12V.We can now calculate the power used by each resistor. Power equals current times voltage. 12V * 1.2A = 14.4 WIn other words 14.4 Watts are used by R1, and another 14.4 Watts are used by R2. The total power used in the circuit is 28.8 Watts.Notice that R2 does not reuse the power used by R1. Some power is spent in each, and all of the power in total comes from the battery.If you now look at your simpler circuit with three batteries and a light bulb, you will see that it really isn't all that different from my example. You have two 12V batteries in series, whereas I made up a single 24V battery in my example.Instead of two resistors in series like my example, you have a light bulb and a third battery wired in backwards.A light bulb and a resistor are nearly identical from a circuit analysis perspective. The light bulb turn power into light and heat, the resistor turns all of the power only into heat. But they both use up power, and it isn't really important where that power goes, it is gone.Granted a battery is not quite as simple as a resistor, but the division of power between the light bulb and the battery works in much the same way as the division of power between the two resistors in my example.The important thing to remember is that with components linked in series, the voltage drop will be split between them. The split will not always be even, because the ratio of the voltage split is determined by the ratio of the resistances of the components. But it _will_ be split. Therefore the power expended in the circuit will also be split amongst the components.No magic. No reuse or recycling of power.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2015, 11:08:00 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 08:01:59 pmWhat you didn't show, but rather conveniently assumed, is what happens when you actually do put those caps in series and re-inject the circuit. Sure, you get 24V, but putting those three caps in series might give you 24V but the capacitance is now only 3,333uF.You need two equations, one for the energy held in a capacitor given its capacitance and the voltage across its terminals, and one for calculating the capacitance of several caps in series.Your setup loses 2/3rds of its energy mostly in the light bulb.See here:

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 12:02:45 am
content: Yes, I was thinking about that as well. It is like a pendulum swinging... and each time it passes through the lowest point it drives a "wheel" that spins for a bit. Eventually the pendulum runs out of energy. As the pendulum is raised, it has "potential" (like the capacitor plates charged to a certain voltage) and as it is allowed to swing it builds up kinetic energy (like the current travelling through the light bulb it does work), but then it does not raise back up to the same potential energy. In this case the calculations show 2/3rds loss each pass or swing.... Energy being lost as light and heat by the bulb. Like a super-bouncing ball or pendulum.

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 12:05:21 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 25, 2015, 06:21:04 pmJOHN BEDINI UNVEILS 14FT. HIGH MONOPOLE MOTOR AT CONFERENCEQuote

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 12:30:10 am
content: Quote from: snoopy on January 28, 2015, 12:05:21 amWhow, loads of capitals. Shift key defect?

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 01:04:44 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 07:38:15 pmYou do not see it used simply because it does not work that way: if you use two batteries and a shunt element to limit current into a third battery, half the power gets used by the shunt and the other half goes into the third battery, minus the batteries' internal losses. After the first iteration, you now have two dead batteries and one (mostly) charged one assuming it started discharged - if the third battery started charged, then you wasted half of your first two batteries as heat into the third one since batteries dissipate excess charge as heat - at least they they do not vent gas or explode.Now you can take your third battery and run your 12V load for about the same duration as you did with the first two. By the time the third battery is depleted, you will have run your load about twice as long as a single battery could have, which you could have achieved by simply connecting batteries #1 and #2 in parallel, and omitting battery #3 altogether. You save the expense, weight and space of a whole battery.Battery #3 does not contribute anything useful to your circuit; all it does is compensate for ridiculously poor initial design in an expensive (if you are going to run a 12V load, run it off 12V), potentially dangerous (overcharge hazards) and impractical (need to swap batteries around) way. Put two batteries in parallel, ditch the third and call it a day: simpler, safer, no battery handling required, no additional efficiency loss from having to charge the unnecessary third battery.

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 01:10:20 am
content: Quote from: jancumps on January 28, 2015, 12:30:10 amNot to mention all of the true believers at the demo

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 01:14:45 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 07:38:15 pmAre you saying you want the load to have a low internal resistance? In your diagram you show the blue circle as a "Low Resistance Load".Now, this is where you run into trouble. Let's take this to the limit and assume we can make a "load" with zero resistance. Perfect, right? Except, no, not at all. If a load has no resistance it will consume no power and do no work. It will be completely useless. In order for a load to be useful it must have resistance. There is actually a "best" resistance to choose, not too small and not too large. At either extreme, low resistance or high resistance, the power will approach zero and nothing useful will be gained. Somewhere in the middle, with the right resistance, power transfer is maximized.Do you ever go to the gym and work out? If you want a good workout you have to set the resistance on the machines, right? If you set the resistance to zero, how much of a workout do you think you will get? Setting the resistance to zero will do you no good. It will be like doing weight training with a feather.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 01:47:33 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 27, 2015, 08:01:59 pmNot rough at all, it's very good in fact, streets ahead of the majority of youtube content like this.

author: Mr.B
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 01:59:27 am
content: I admire you people for trying to educate this DaveWing guy, however he is so brainwashed by his own lack of knowledge that you yourselves are wasting precious energy. Another guy out of the same mould as ManOfStone.They honestly believe they have discovered the EE version of the Ark of the Covenant, or the Elixir of Life.They have seen the magician perform his illusion and honestly believe it to be true…I cannot be bothered wasting my time with these twits.Video was a good laugh though, thanks Dave.I am off to read some more EE informative threads…

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:31:56 am
content: Quote from: Mr.B on January 28, 2015, 01:59:27 amSo what's the problem then. Why don't these dudes take it to its logical conclusion and power their house with it ? What is stopping them ? Why make a big who-ha about powering up a few leds or a motor that couldn't pull the skin off a custard ?cheers

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:33:47 am
content: Quote from: snoopy on January 28, 2015, 02:31:56 amThats exactly what I was thinking. Why are they fooling around with stilly YouTube videos when they could be out making money powering their whole neighborhood at practically 100% profit.

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:38:02 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 28, 2015, 02:33:47 amBut there's always that caveat about having to raise more money to get to the next step of making a bigger one

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:40:21 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 27, 2015, 11:08:00 pmThank you for the reply.I am not an engineer so there are quite a few things that are out of my knowledge base. So forgive me for my short comings in that area.Ok to clear some things up which may not make much of a difference in the calculations I was using 35volt 15000 uf caps in the test.I also tried putting the load and the switch across the negative side and the voltage on each cap is now on average 9.35volts... That changes things a little... But not much.Another thing I noticed is that the test works the same even if I just used a copper wire instead of the light bulb it was still around 9.35 volts in each cap.-Dave Wing

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:59:50 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on January 28, 2015, 02:33:47 amBecause they're neverquitethere yet - they can see the edge of the goal (be it over-unity or power 'recovery'), but it always needsjustalittlemore experimenting to make it worthwhile.Thecraziermore paranoid ones are convinced there's a massive conspiracy to silence the inventors and hide the evidence.(I sometimes wonder about the second: if therewerea conspiracy, why would they dick around warning/threatening/harassing people rather than just disappear them? And if they did, how would you tell the difference between that happening and, say, someone who just went bush to selfishly live like a king* in their own little free-energy paradise?)(* Or alternately - since the crowd usually attribute nothing but the highest of motives to the inventors - realising that their invention would cause untold disruption to the world economy, and choosing to hide themselves and their invention to save untold misery to billions of people...)

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 03:28:55 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 02:40:21 amThis was a valuable observation, and it has something important to tell us.Let's do some math with your experiment:We will assume in our experiment that we have a 10,000 µF capacitor charged up to 24 V. There is a formula for how much charge this capacitor is holding, and it is the voltage times the capacitance. So we can say the stored charge is Q1:Q1 = 24 V * 10,000 µF = 240,000 µC(Don't worry what a µC is, let's just say it is a measure of electric charge.)In our experiment, let us connect this capacitor to another identical capacitor so that the voltages equalize. We will find now that each capacitor is charged to 12 V (in a perfect world). The charge stored in each capacitor is given by the same formula, only now there are two capacitors, so the total charge is twice the charge on one capacitor. Let's call the total charge Q2:Q2 = 2 * 12 V * 10,000 µF = 240,000 µCIt's just the same as before! So maybe we have not lost anything?If we put a bulb in the circuit when we connect the capacitors together, the bulb will light up and give us useful light, and still we will have the same total charge left at the end. It sure seems like we have got something for nothing, does it not?But as you can tell, there is a "but" coming. Let's rewind the experiment and look at the but.When we look at the first capacitor, the total charge is not the important thing, the total stored energy is the important thing. The total stored energy is given by a different formula, involving the square of the voltage. The energy, E1, stored in the first capacitor, is this:E1 = 0.5 * 10,000 µF * 24 V * 24 V = 2,880,000 µJ = 2.88 JHere, the "J" means joules, a unit of energy. Energy is what we pay for when we buy electricity from the utility company, only they measure it by kilowatt-hours, or kWh. It's the same thing though.Let's now see what we have after we join the capacitors together and equalize them. The new energy E2, is this:E2 = 2 * 0.5 * 10,000 µF * 12 V * 12 V = 1.44 JLook what happened. It is only half the energy we started with! We have "lost" half of our valuable energy.Where did it go? It was wasted, in fact. Lost as heat due to the resistance in the wires.If we want to recover our lost energy, we need to put that bulb in the circuit. Then at least the bulb will convert some of the lost energy into useful light.So how can we summarize this experiment? It tells us, not how much energy can we conserve, but rather, how much energy can we avoid wasting!There is a rule of thumb in engineering that often applies. The more complex you make a system, the more waste you are likely to get. Very often, simplest is best.If you want light, connect your bulb to the power source directly and maximize your light.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 04:00:30 am
content: Has this thread taken an interesting turn towards the light?? It almost appears like you guys are making some progress.I have a few questions for DaveWing......Questions:After having read people's explanations here, some of them very good, very detailed, and very to the point......1) What unanswered questions do you still have? People have specifically addressed a lot of the things you brought up.2) What parts of your circuit do you still think are working differently than what people have explained?3a) What (if anything) would it take to convince you that your device doesn't work like you thought it did?3b) Or can you admit that there is absolutely no evidence we could possibly present you here that would change your mind?::EDIT:: to add question #44) If you are actually a super smart EE and just trolling because you knew you could get people do pages and pages of math and explanations to try to show you what's going on...... where and when would you like to accept your trophy for troll of the century?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 04:35:22 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on January 28, 2015, 04:00:30 amThis actually doesn't matter too much, since someone, somewhere out there may read this thread and find it useful.

author: BlueBill
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 04:43:11 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 26, 2015, 04:07:52 amJust watch out when they fling their poo at you.

author: Don Hills
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 05:02:06 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 02:40:21 amIs that why you can't help me to understand what you're saying?Quote from: Don Hills on January 27, 2015, 10:37:20 am

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 05:25:28 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on January 28, 2015, 04:00:30 am1)I do have more questions but will as them as they come about, I am thankful for everyone's help in this learning process.2) I see what others are saying and it seems to me to be truth.3) That circuit still has me a little confused... As the light bulb has the same results as a copper wire does, they both fill the capacitors to 9.3volts respectively. Why is there not more of a loss with a resistive light bulb than a 13awg copper wire you would use in house wiring? That one I do not understand. I will do the tests though to find out. If anyone can answer this please let me know.3b)I am a man that listens to reason and will go where the truth is.4) As I said before I am not an engineer.-Dave Wing

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 06:03:28 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 05:25:28 amIt's like if you had a tank containing 1000 gallons of water 100 ft up a hill, and an empty tank at the bottom. The water at the top of the hill has 100 ft of head you could use to do something useful like drive a turbine or turn a water wheel. If you did this, if you piped the water down the hill and drove a turbine, you would have got some useful work out of the water. When you finished you would still have exactly 1000 gallons of water at the bottom of the hill. None of it would be lost, only it would no longer be able to drive the turbine. Your turbine in this example is the load, like the bulb.Now suppose if instead of running a turbine, you just used a big fat pipe to let the water flow down to the bottom of the hill. Your big fat pipe is like your copper wire. When you are finished you would still have exactly 1000 gallons of water at the bottom of the hill. Not a drop of water different than if it went through the turbine on the way. And you would have given up exactly the same amount of energy: 100 ft of head times 1000 gallons gone to waste.You can run this experiment any which way, do anything with the water on its journey, but you will always get 1000 gallons in your tank at the bottom of the hill when you are finished (assuming no leaks, of course). Thus it is with the capacitors. You are always going to get 9.3 volts.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 07:04:28 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 28, 2015, 06:03:28 amAnd to complete the analogy, in the case where there is no turbine, just a big fat pipe, where does all the gravitational potential energy of the water go? Into sound & heat generated ("wasted") as the water rushes through the fat pipe and slams into the walls of the tank.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 07:48:20 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 28, 2015, 07:27:27 amYep. I notice he's VERY selective in what posts he responds to.It's an elaborate troll, folks. Give it up.Think: What sort of person could make that video (using that equipment) but claim to not understand the formula for energy stored in a capacitor ("I am not an engineer")...? There's only one answer.

author: PA4TIM
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 09:54:52 am
content: That wondered me too, he has two Keithley 199 benchmeters. Not something people with almost no electronics knowledge would buy.I have seen more discussions about this. You can explain until the end of times but their problem is a lack of knowledge about electronic fundamentals. They often know enough to impress buddies or fix a TV or whatever, but for this subject they need to know a lot more fundamentle things to understand what we tell.The analogies are nice but do not fill the gap. We think, yep, that is what happens and see the battery, the formula's and what our instruments would give in this case, he only sees water coming through a tube from the mountain because he does not know what things like energy, charge, mass, capacitance, etc really are. He does not really know how the battery works. What a vlotdrop over a component can tell you, what the function of voltage and current is and how all these things mix with jouls, coulombs, or power. He does not know about the mechanical force between plates of a capacitor, the chemical and electrical process inside a battery, the difference between resistance, reactance and impedance, about electic and magnetic field, transfering or radiating energy, basic laws etc etc.When there is pulsing he does not know about ESL, ringing, EMF, radiation loss. He does not know about crest factors, pulses containing a lot of frequency components , AC+DC TRMS meters needed with enough bandwidth, why those keithley 199 meters do not work for pulsed signals.I remember learning about RF. Things like reflection where so way off that I could not imagin it, I had not enough knowledge at that time to take that step. So I was convinced everybody must be having it wrong. I did experiments, hoping that showed my theory was right. I'm glad I had a very patient tutor and was very open minded so now I can laugh about the weird ideas I had back then. I just missed to much basic knowledge. Later when I studied about component behaviour, paracitics, AC theory and network analysis all things fell on the right place. It was worth the years of study and I'm still learning new things every day.FredThe

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:18:15 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 02:40:21 amYou don't need to be an engineer, all you need is the maths you were taught by the time you were about 13 or 14 and the two equations I gave you namelyE = 1/2 * C * V^2And1/Ctot = 1/C1 + 1/C2 + 1/C3 ...for caps in seriesYou now have all the equations you need. Now go and make a video of your full experiment putting the caps in series back into the system and apply that high school maths and it will become clear.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:41:22 am
content: Quote from: PA4TIM on January 28, 2015, 09:54:52 amYou don't have to be an engineering major to do basic arithmetic (and basic arithmetic is all that's needed to explain his video).Question: Ask yourself why there's three capacitors in his video and not just two. Two would work just as well for "energy recovery", right?.Answer: To get the sum of voltages very close to 25 at the end of the video (25 was the initial voltage so the system must therefore be close to unity! TADA!)(Four capacitors might be "over unity" using his math. I wonder why he hasn't done that yet? He's had 16 years to try that simple modification...)

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:49:07 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 28, 2015, 10:18:15 am...that, and also not be a troll.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:46:57 am
content: To clear a couple of things up... Here is where I am going with all this.Here is a patent that covers what we are discussing on this site...http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Benitez/GB191514311A.pdfAnd here is a magazine article that is based upon the work of Ronald Brandt... Ronald approached John Bedini in the early 80's with a rough drawing of what he had seen in a car somewhere and asked John to make a solid state version... Which John made for him and demonstrated at the 1984 Tesla symposium.http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/29447301John Bedini also has a two DVD set that tells one how to build a working device. Found here...http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/DVDListforpurchase.htmEike Mueller also did some basic experimentation with the circuit at John Bedini's shop some time ago.http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/MUELLER_EXPERIMENTS_KROMREY_BRANDT_TESLA_BEDINI.pdf-Dave Wing

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:53:57 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 28, 2015, 06:03:28 amThank you for the reply...What I was getting at is a light bulb gives off heat and light yet in this circuit there is no difference in the total finishing voltage in all capacitors in the system between a 13 awg wire and the light bulb. How is that possible under conventional engineering laws? That is what I do not understand. People say a light bulb uses energy yet it appears not to in this circuit.-Dave Wing

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 12:13:44 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 11:53:57 amHere is your entire problem in a nutshell, and everyone else who believes in overunity et.alYou are under the assumption that it is possible for things to happenoutsideof conventional engineering laws. It's not, ever.And the instant you say things like that is the instant people start to not take you seriously or think you are crackpot etc.In today's modern world with our understanding of almost everything in basic practical macro fundamental engineering and physics, that has been built thoroughly on hundreds of years of research and theory, it's nigh on impossible for an individual in their garage to prove the basic laws wrong in any way.I know it's a wet dream every naive garage tinkerer has, but you just have to let it go.To be taken seriously you need to change how you look at these things.In this case when you measure something you don't understand, start by asking "so what is the engineering laws or theory that explains this?"Hint - its really really helps if you start by understanding and trusting the basic laws like conservation of energy.Sorry to be blunt, but it has to be said, this phrase is a massive red flag that will get you nowhere in any proper technical forum.

author: firebox121
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 12:56:02 pm
content: @Dave WingTo determine energy and power you need more than just voltage, this is part of your misunderstanding. The water potential example is particularly good and should help with an intuitive understanding. However, you also need to acquire an understanding of the physics, associated equations and how they apply them in a real world situation.I had a quick look at the article you reference and unfortunately the content was lacking, it misused standard physics/engineering words and phrases. There was absolutely no intellectual rigour to any of the content. To progress further you need to try and gain an appreciation of intellectual rigour, which is contained in some of the replies to your questions.PS I've found this thread interesting and it was persuaded me for the first time to register and comment. It's been interesting, not just explaining electrical engineering concepts, but also psychology of believers.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 01:01:35 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 11:53:57 amEither:a) It's a magic light bulborb) The light bulb useslessenergy than you imagine, the 13 awg wire usesmoreenergy than you imagine, your measurements aren't accurate enough, you need to measure more things (eg. capacitor temperatures), or ... any number of perfectly good 'conventional engineering' explanations.Explanations which you're willfully choosing to ignore.Hint: You're going to keep on looking like an idiot/troll and not be taken seriously until you stop ignoring them and change your default position away from 'it must be magic!'

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 02:44:25 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 11:53:57 amFat wire: all the lost energy is wasted and thrown awayLight bulb: some of the lost energy is captured and turned into useful light instead of being thrown awayYou are trying quite hard to pretend to misunderstand, aren't you?

author: parbro
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 03:26:51 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 28, 2015, 03:28:55 amGiven that your equations used did not describe the energy loss in the wires, would it be more accurate to say the 50% loss of energy was the energy required to charge the second capacitor? Or that this energy loss is inherent to the charging of capacitors?

author: eneuro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 03:49:00 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 11:46:57 amI like patents especially those from XVIII/XIX and of course I'm Tesla funProbably made a little bit more complicated circuit than they suggest, but wow, we are in XXI century and for extraordinary claims more advanced technology is neededLet me know if you want experiment with this enhanced circuit from this thread and for $10 you can get as many such small (tiny) PCBs as you want-to get more free energy you need of course more such small generators12V old car battery can be used there-forget about crappy 1.5V alkaline-we're in renowable energy ageThis was optimized in Spice and oscilator frequency is increased, so it is much more efficient design (150%-178%) can be achived very easy....However, it needs to be soldered using special kind of soldering technique-It is called SMA (Surface Mount Art)If you buy 100 such boards, you will get SMA manual for free

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 04:03:46 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 05:25:28 amThat is actually quite a good question to ask people learning about electronics!After all, the start state, and the end state are the same no matter what the resistance of the kink between the capacitors is.So, why does the circuit "loose" the same amount of energy in either case? The answer is in the 4th dimension! And of course is "TIME". All that the resistance changes in this circuit is HOW LONG it takes for it to achieve equilibrium. For example, you could expend 10joules worth of energy by expending 10W of power for 1 second, or by expending 1W for 10seconds. In either case you have "lost" the same amount of energy.Now the only difficult bit comes when you look at how resistance "looses" power, as it has a square term in the calculation. So the power in a resistance is IsquaredR (I x I x R).So when you replace your bulb, with say 10ohms of resistance with a bit of wire with say just 1 ohm of resistance, the equilibrium point occurs 10x faster, with 10x more current average flowing. So, lets say in:Case 1: with a 10 Ohm bulb in series, it takes 10sec for equilibrium, and 1Amp flows:The average loss in the bulb (IxIXR) is 1 x 1 x 10 = 10 Watts, and 10watts for 10sec = 100 JoulesCase 2: with a 1 Ohm wire in series, it takes just 1 sec for equilibrium and 10 Amps flow:The average loss in the bulb is 10 X 10 X 1 = 100 Watts, and 100 Watts for 1 second is, 100 joulesSee, it's amazingly elegant how the real physical world works, to the point we don't really need to be making up psuedo science or WooWoo or whatever!!

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 06:05:17 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 11:53:57 amCase 1: Big fat wire. You just put a short circuit right across your power bank. All the energy got thrown away with a flash and a bang.Case 2: Bulb. You still drained the power bank, but now some of the energy got changed into light by the bulb.You need to explain why you think the bulb appears not to use any energy.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 06:15:25 pm
content: Quote from: parbro on January 28, 2015, 03:26:51 pmThat's a curiously insightful question, and in fact there is an energy loss inherent in charging capacitors if you just connect them to a power supply.Let's say we want to charge a 10,000 µF capacitor up to 12 V using a 12 V DC power supply.When the capacitor has finished charging, the energy stored inside it is given by:E1 = 0.5 * 10,000 µF * 12 V * 12 V = 0.72 joulesBut the charge in the capacitor that had to be supplied by the power supply is:C1 = 10,000 µF * 12 V = 0.12 coulombsTherefore the energy drained from the power supply is:E2 = 0.12 coulombs * 12 V = 1.44 joulesWe find that only half the power consumed by the power supply ended up stored in the capacitor. There was 50% of wasted energy!

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 06:38:06 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 27, 2015, 12:28:07 amThe above is a quote from admin.If the above quote is true, that potential energy is converted into light/heat how can we pass anything into the parallel capacitors at all? Yet we see some energy made it through and can be used again... So the system captures some of the energy that flows through the bulb for re-use. The normal configuration, that is directly across a battery or capacitor positive/ negative terminals gives no return for re-use.I hope you understand my question.-Dave Wing

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 06:57:22 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 06:38:06 pmBecause the capacitors increases the load, it would be like placing bulbs with the equivalent resistance of those capacitors.Without the capacitors no extra load will be demanded from the battery. So adding extra loads just makes your battery to deplete faster and more energy wasted in heat on those capacitors that you are charging because of the internal resistance in the caps.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 07:01:56 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 06:38:06 pmNothing was captured for re-use. This isn't what happens.You start out with some energy. You end up with less energy. This difference is what is lost or consumed. It's your choice whether to use it or lose it.But there is no return for re-use. Gone is gone.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 07:50:08 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 06:38:06 pmNope.If any energy "got though" it's because it was never used in the first place. It was shared between two components which are connected in seriesImagine two LEDs in series - you can light both of them up, but...you need twice the voltage to do it.The second LEDisn'tsomehow re-using the energy that came out of the first one, it takes extra input voltage to light it up.But anyway, I'm done here. You're not interested in the truth, any further effort in your direction just makesmethe idiot.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 08:00:54 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 28, 2015, 07:50:08 pmSorry but the flow must go through the load there is no other way.-Dave Wing

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 08:03:35 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 28, 2015, 06:15:25 pmIn the math I did above, the energy was lost to resistance. The amount of resistance did not dictate the amount of energy lost, only the time it took, so I'm not surprised the energy loss can be computed with R cancelling out. Ithinkcareful inspection of the derivation of those formulas assumes finite current.

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 08:06:16 pm
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 08:00:54 pmCurrent is not energy!

author: hammy
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 08:24:30 pm
content: A lot of discussion about basics explained in AoE on page 2, chapter "1.01 Voltage and current".This troll knows exactly how to push someones buttons.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 09:39:53 pm
content: Quote from: hammy on January 28, 2015, 08:24:30 pmNo shit. I must say though ...@DaveWing:Well played. One of the better played trolls I've seen in a while. Usually it's boringly and sadly transparent. You managed to stay juuust within the envelope of doubt for a pretty long time... but integrated over all messages the mistakes are there. Woopsie, better luck next troll.No doubt you will come with"but but I am misunderstood, I am just trying to learn". Too late, you overplayed it. Anyways, as other posters have said, even if this is a troll (which it turns out to be), then it's not wasted time. Other people will read the posts as well, and may learn something regarding common mistakes when calculating power. You just played a few people for your amusement, but oh well, the by-product of a good explanation for the benefit of others is worth it.Well, actually you spoiled it early on already, but subtle enough. Anyways, now scoot. Fun's over. Next forum, next nickname.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:14:42 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 28, 2015, 07:01:56 pmIf you put it to ground you lose it. That is my point. The other point is why lose it? Please explain how does the potential get into the parallel capacitor section... It has to go through the load... That is the only way.Or if there is another way the potential gets in the parallel caps fill me in on how it gets there.-Dave Wing

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:09:01 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 11:14:42 pmYou seem to have answered your own question. Energy gets into the parallel capacitor section through the load. Some gets consumed by the load and some makes it through into the capacitor bank. So what then is your question?

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:31:03 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 08:00:54 pmThere is another way: if you have too much voltage for your load that there is "energy to recover" (enough voltage headroom to cram a battery or cap in series) then you would be much better off using a DC-DC converter to provide the correct voltage to the load in the first place. This would be far more efficient than using a bunch of batteries or switched capacitors.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:32:34 am
content: Ok.... Ok... It's pretty dark again. Faith has been lost.At this point wouldn't it be funny if we all just changed our tunes and started agreeing with him.OMG You're RIGHT!!! You really have discovered the mythical free energy!!! Hurry! Go get patents and investors, and tell all your friends! You're going to be a millionaire! We are professional engineers and have been doing this our whole lives, but you just opened our eyes with your kitchen table circuit!!! Why oh why did I stop at two batteries when I could have just added one more and had success!!!!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 01:40:25 am
content: He's lost for humanity, don't waste your time. And don't dare to invite him in our secret club, he will corrupt it and leak all our secrets.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 01:48:48 am
content: QuoteI don't think so. The energy based on charge has a 1/2 factor in the equation as well.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:11:26 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 06:38:06 pmYou have been told time and time again that current is NOT energy, yet you refuse to acknowledge this fact.You either have a severe learning disability or, as others have said, you are very expertly trolling us.I'm am seriously starting to believe the later, in which case, give me a good reason why you shouldn't just be banned?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:22:51 am
content: Quote from: westfw on January 29, 2015, 01:48:48 amOne joule is one watt-second, and one coulomb is one amp-second (or put another way, one watt is one joule per second, and one amp is one coulomb per second).Given this, suppose the power supply delivers 1 amp for 0.12 seconds to charge the capacitor. 1 amp from a 12 volt power supply is a power output of 12 watts.Therefore the total charge delivered is 1 A x 0.12 s = 0.12 C. The total energy output is 12 W x 0.12 s = 1.44 J.(0.72 J is stored in the capacitor and 0.72 J is dissipated as heat in the system.)((Extra capacitance in a system will lead to a worse power factor and will lead to greater I2R losses.))(((Moral: Do not charge a capacitor from a voltage source. You will lose. Always charge a capacitor from a current source if system efficiency is important to you.)))

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:29:27 am
content: http://bedinissg.com/Look who the first "Satisfied Customer" is..He's already invested $27. Can't back down now!Quote

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:09:55 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on January 29, 2015, 02:29:27 amIt seems our friend Dave Wing has been sprouting all this nonsense on other forums as well:http://www.energyscienceforum.com/search.php?searchid=472885Pretty clear we are being trolled by someone who will never ever change their mind.

author: DaveWing
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:10:41 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on January 29, 2015, 02:29:27 amAnyone built John's School Girl machine? Any comments on the oscillator? Like I said earlier it provides shaft energy plus it captures the flyback and sends it to a second battery and charges it.-Dave Wing

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:33:03 am
content: Somebody with writing skills needs to turn this forum thread into a coffee table book. It could be a bestseller.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:35:00 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 29, 2015, 03:10:41 amWhat exactly is the point of that device?You can charge a battery from another battery and turn a bicycle wheel at the same time? Why?If any of these things actually worked as claimed, why are there zero commercial (or even private, practical) examples of the things delivering anything in the Real World?The people out there who are exploiting scientific/physical phenomenon for fun and profit are those who understand the real laws of physics and how to use them in the real world.Everyone else appears to be fooling around with junk in their basement and making goofy YouTube videos.Yeah, he got a patent for it. But you will find lots of patents for things out there that will never work.Including more than a few perpetual-motion machines. I didn't check, but it may even be included in this list:"Patents for Unworkable Devices"https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/patents.htmYou don't have to demonstrate that something meets the claims to be issued a patent.Although there are people lobbying to tighten up the patent office to be more realistic.And the schematic diagrams in the patent aren't even complete circuits.The negative side of the battery theoretically being "charged" is flapping around in the breeze.Apparently the patent examiner didn't even know how to read a schematic diagram.But then if they can use magnets with only North poles, maybe they have special batteries that don't need a complete circuit.https://www.google.com/patents/US6545444

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:00:57 am
content: I don't think this type of discussion has any point.Stupidity is invincible.After all, who needs Kirchhoff and his Laws? We're bending the laws of physics here!

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:05:16 am
content: This reminds me of an interaction I had with someone on the street in an entirely different context...Stranger approaches me in a parking lot while I'm gearing up for some outdoor fun and starts up a conversation about what I was doing... Seemed legitimately interested but not knowledgeable.. After a couple minutes of this dude asking pretty decent questions and having me totally convinced he was sincere... he says...."Hey I have one more question....."......pauses for effect......."Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior?"BAM!TROLLED in real life!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:10:45 am
content: Our friend MrWing won't be playing any more. Sorry to spoil the fun but this has to stop some time.

author: mswhin63
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:20:45 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 29, 2015, 04:10:45 amShame, just logged on and wanted to know what actual qualifications he actually has science or engineering related. Wording appears as though Astrology comes to mind dreaming of the stars.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:21:54 am
content: Wack-a-mole....One down

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:31:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 29, 2015, 04:10:45 amFinally, what a complete waste of ink this whole bloody thing has been.You should also ban anybody else in this thead that received free energy.Muttley

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:33:38 am
content: Quote from: DaveWing on January 28, 2015, 11:46:57 amSo where is it ?Why aren't we seeing anything of practical use after all of these years ?Don't tell me it's because there is a conspiracy to stop it

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:56:49 am
content: Post deleted. See new thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/why-trying-to-store-energy-in-a-capacitor-can-be-less-efficient-than-you-think/

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 05:46:14 am
content: Quote from: helius on January 29, 2015, 04:00:57 amThat reminds me of an old saying: "You cannot win an argument against idiots: they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

author: trentland
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 06:29:51 am
content: What? You couldn't prove this worked? Then release this video on April 2nd....

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 06:43:37 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on January 29, 2015, 02:59:18 amSome top stuff in that thread.The whole "The only problem with flywheel that has the weight on the outside is it takes more work to get it up to speed ... The real trick would be to have the weight start on inside then move out slowly as the speed was gained" sidetrack is basically the M.E. version of this thread...

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 06:59:16 am
content: Quote from: Tac Eht Xilef on January 29, 2015, 06:43:37 amI guess these "creatures" never seen a spinning ice skater before eh ? or heard something called angular momentum.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:38:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 29, 2015, 04:10:45 amI see you gave joined the global conspiracy to suppress information about these wonderful devices

author: bartm
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:42:18 am
content: I predict that all energy wasted on this forum thread teaching the free-energy community, will never be recovered by the global free energy community.Although there was some energy recovered in useful analogies and explanations. It never landed though… and afraid it never wil.Glad you stopped the nonsense, Dave.My advise to the free-energy community is to stop using any parts and equipment designed by people who believe in the basic laws of physics. Thats whats been holding free energy back for all these years. Create your own parts and equipment that go 'beyond' the laws of physics, and you shall succeed.I won't contribute to that i'm afraid, i'm a humble believer in the classic laws. Sorry.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:05:24 am
content: QuoteI see the Freemason Lodge of Illuminati Reptilians Free Energy Suppressing Oil Users have gotten to you as well Dave...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:11:05 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 29, 2015, 04:10:45 amAfter hundreds of posts it's obvious wasn't here to learn anything (or ever listen to answers).

author: parbro
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 01:03:13 pm
content: IanB,Maybe fork the capacitor analysis to a new thread? I found that much more fascinating. Although, ritualistically flogging an ignoramus with knowledge is not without it's charms. Some questions regarding capacitor charging, would the results be the same with a current source? I think so. Inductors have the same half power term so I assume the results would be the same too.

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:01:15 pm
content: Quote from: parbro on January 29, 2015, 01:03:13 pmThis^^^^^ This IS interesting, and has never crossed my mind before! I'd love to know more about it!Calling "Dave to Video camera, Dave to Video camera" please!PS. did anyone else subconciously put on a James Bond Evil Villains accent when reading the "Mr Wing won't be joining us any more" comment......

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:08:44 pm
content: Quote from: bartm on January 29, 2015, 08:42:18 amExcellently put!

author: CaptCrash
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:22:25 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 29, 2015, 04:10:45 amNooooooYou fine sir have ruined Christmas

author: mswhin63
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:39:43 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on January 29, 2015, 02:01:15 pmI am sure Dave could look at the stats on his Youtube rant to see if it is a good business venture to debunk more of them, in his unique style of course!

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:42:19 pm
content: QuoteWhile I'd love to see more dubious pieces of engineering (more free energy devices, 10kUSD/m crygenetically treated, hand woven by nude virgins on a tropical island audio cables) debunked, I'm afraid it would be like going after religion - the believers believe and will not be swayed by any quantity of rational argument, the nonbelievers already do not believe. But yeah, I'd love to see some more stuff put to the test/explanation...

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:45:58 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on January 29, 2015, 07:42:19 pmI would love to be production manager in that company

author: Don Hills
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:19:50 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on January 29, 2015, 07:42:19 pmAt that price, they would have to come with a visit to the factory to see them being made.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:37:22 pm
content: I was just thinking today back to one of my first memories as a child, about five, when I wired up my Lego battery box, which had two pairs of terminals, in a way that I thought I would get it to recharge itself. As I remember it there was no marking of + and - in those days on the box, so it was 50/50 as to whether it was going to be a new set of batteries after half an hour or so of such activity.And then a few weeks later, trying to figure out how to plug the same battery box into the AC mains. Luckily I was too young to be able to figure out how to open the L and N shutters.On both occasions when I proudly told my father of my experiments I got a right royal bollocking for some reason. I'll get me old man to have a word with Mr Wing, maybe that'll work.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 04:43:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 29, 2015, 04:10:45 amI followed the Steorn saga for a while, and the thing I've learned about the free energy people is that their competence is inversely proportional to their persistence - and they are very persistent! They seem to develop a permanent "knowledge blindness" with a developed world view which seems quite coherent to them, but completely wrong, and resists any and all attempts at correction. I think they are sincere because no-one in their right mind could be such a perfect troll and for so long!You might think it's only the complex concepts like relativity and quantum mechanics would lead people down into the rabbit hole, but magnetism, gravity and basic electronics all seem to be a draw for these people.For an amusing "retro" take on Free Energy, have a look athttp://www.besslerwheel.com/- they sincerely believe free energy was cracked several hundred years ago, we just need to replicate themissing diagram. Perhaps to restore sanity, I also like to look atThe Museum of Unworkable Devices.But really, there is no way to engage with these people on any sane level.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 11:14:39 pm
content: I just remembered one of my friends as a kid who got the idea of a self-propelled sailboat - a boat with a large fan blowing its own sails.Not quite the same thing as free energy but if there was any net efficiency gain to be had that way, we would be blowing into sails instead of using direct propulsion. In a similar fashion, that childhood friend would not believe me when I told him his boat would not be going anywhere since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, with both being tied to the boat in his case and canceling each other.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 01:28:40 am
content: Quote from: DanielS on January 30, 2015, 11:14:39 pmJust turn the fan around.....

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 01:54:29 am
content: Quote from: daqq on January 29, 2015, 07:42:19 pmI deliberately won't touch that subject on a technical level, because it's just not possible. Audiophoolery is an entirely subjectiveanalogphenomenon, and no amount of measurement will prove to them it's bullshit. Even double blind A-B testing doesn't prove it to them, because they will refuse to be a part of it. You'd basically have to get the worlds most revered audiophool to take part, otherwise they'll just claim the person in the test isn't good enough.Unlike for example the test that was done a few years back (forgot were) that proved HDMI cables didn't make a difference because it's digital they are able to exactly compare images at the end of the cable and analyse them, and they are precisely identical. No analog or subjective nature involved, it's 100% provable.

author: polemon
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 10:45:18 am
content: Quote from: daqq on January 29, 2015, 07:42:19 pmIf you'rereallyinterested in that, read some of the articles onhydrogenaudio.com. Every now and then, they'll take articles apart like "Analog - true lossless", and the kind of audio equipment you mentioned.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 11:31:15 am
content: Quote from: DanielS on January 30, 2015, 11:14:39 pmThey actually did that one on mythbusters ... and it works! The boat moves forwards.Edit: Here's the video...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 12:40:28 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 31, 2015, 01:54:29 amYou can definitely prove that no optical cable will make the sound 'warmer' or give it more 'bass extension'.You don't even need a meter for that, only a blackboard: Changing random bits in a data stream can't possibly alter the frequency spectrum of the sound, binary data simply doesn't work that way.Do the Pesky Facts make a difference? Nope. They'll go on and on about 'reduced jitter' or some such crap instead, Google "toslink cable review" and see for yourself."Jitter" is their safe-word as soon as anything gets technical. So long as jitter isn't zero their belief is safe (doesn't matter if it's 0.0000001% - that's still 'jitter' to them.)Quote from: EEVblog on January 31, 2015, 01:54:29 amYep.eg. James Randi offered his million dollars to the CEO of Pear cables if they could tell their $7000 cables from a piece of zip cord in an A-B test. They initially said they'd do it (presumably so the audiophool magazines could print "Pear cables CEO accepts the Randi challenge!!") then a month later they simply refused to take part:http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 03:53:31 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 31, 2015, 12:40:28 pmThat always makes me laugh, i mean, has anyone actually worked out what the "source" jitter is? I mean, say the guy playing the guitar or the piano or what ever, how accurately are they timing their actions? I'd guess on a human scale, with lots of practice you could get "jitter" down to say 10mS maybe? ;-)

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2015, 05:09:45 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on January 31, 2015, 03:53:31 pmTI makes USB DACs that automatically correct for any timing problem in the source datastream (eg. If your PC is sending the USB data at 48.001kHz) and reduce output jitter to almost zero. They call it "SpAct", I can't actually find a white paper on it but I assume TI know what they're doing.eg.http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm2704.pdfYou can get $10 DACs on eBay which use that chip. They're about as good as it gets for a 16bit/48kHz USB DAC and are quite popular among audiophiles (not audiophools, obviously).http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=pcm2704Note: Many of them are sold as PCBs with no case - makes it easier to swap the capacitors(around here we have: "Don't turn it on, take it apart!", over there they have: "Don't listen to it, change the capacitors!")--The other day I was reading a page written by somebody who claimed that CDs are the ultimate sound source and thatalldigitally stored/reproduced music is crap. Why? Because CD players play the bits back at whatever speed the plastic disc is spinning, therefore CD DACs have zero jitter. All you need is to get the speed of the disc roughly right and Bob's your uncle - perfect DAC timing!It's hard to argue against the logic of that but the question is: Will you be able tohearthe infinitesimal residual jitter in one of TI's jitter-correcting DACs?And ... that's where the phoolery begins. It's better to not go there, not with a True Believer.(We all know how many extra harmonics a badly timed rising edge can produce, right?)

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2015, 01:37:54 am
content: Ah, jitter ... whenever it comes up around me they get one chance to see if they can have a sensible discussion about clock recovery, time constants, bit/symbol sampling strategies, etc.Just one.Sometimes youcanget them thinking, and with that bit of help can even work it out for themselves eventually.p.s. I once got into a slap-down online with someone who insisted all commercial blu-rays were mastered at 24fps, and the disc was slowed down / sped up to play at the appropriate frame rate...(Strangely, they did know about proper frame rate conversion, telecine, how DVDs were mastered in differing formats/framerates for different markets, etc, etc. But none of that mattered, because blu-ray was different...)

author: Elfnet Gaming
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 01, 2015, 05:00:23 am
content: These free energy videos are the best lolWe all know whats going on in these circuit but whats so rich is the people who know nothing about what they're doing when they are building these things actually believe its free energy or some secret government or alien technology. This is the same bunch of people who wear tin foil hats and things the government puts listening devices in cheese...

author: luky315
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2015, 05:55:54 pm
content: I have another one: The Keppe Motorhttp://www.keppemotor.com/institucional/?lang=en“The Fundamental Mistake in Physics Is of the Equation of Energy with Matter”Yeah. Right.

author: Steve45N
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 02, 2015, 04:23:47 am
content: G'Day folks. New-to-the-forum-guy here, but not Electronics.A couple days ago I stumbled across Dave's video on the switch-mode 23 LED B.S. thingy. Your style hooked me...Following Dave's links, I read the first thread with ManOfStone and balked at reading all of this thread, but I stuck with it like a trooper 'till the very end only to find out that DaveWing was killed!Well, I'm crushed!Those two guys:http://www.despair.com/believe-in-yourself.htmlSeriously, I was interested in seeing how it turned out, but when DaveWing kept throwing in a change of subject I got bored with a lack of any progress (teachers hate that). I think it is that some folks feel superior when they can string others along. Either they think TV reeks, as I do, and need a form of entertainment, or gain a sense of perceived self-worth stringing along folks smarter than they are. ..."The Sting".[I don't troll YouTube, but I will occasionally explain things and, yes, I do stoop to a, hopefully clever, wisecrack @ times ... and, yes I was recently accused of being full of myself for wanting to explain things well.]RE:http://www.despair.com/pretension.htmlAnyway. it kept me from wandering the streets for the last few nights.Excellent video, BTW Dave. A pleasure to hear another engineer on YouTube talking sense...and I did feel your pain of frustration. That type of discussion is the only thing I miss from working (Motorola 36+ years; Navy Tech 3yrs; eHobbyist ~59yrs ).Until I stumbled upon a few YouTubes about a year ago, I hadn't known that the free energy universe was so ...stupid? ... and hadn't heard of things like the Joule Thief and the likes of Thane Hines...sigh. [BTW I've designed REAL PWM motor drives]Many years ago, a tech in my lab wanted to rework a small 4-cyl car engine to run off compressed air so he could run a compressor on it to re-fill his tank...sigh.Yes, patents do not have to 'work' they only have to be 'novel'. My son's a patent attorney.I did, however, get some good entertainment out of this thread.RE: Hydrawerk and the guy with the cooled monopole magnets and "magnetic particles" moving in the magnet... Things a fourth grader would think.I recall a few of my grade school misconceptions. I was affraid that the 1A of a nice 12V 1A power supply would blow the snot out of a little one transistor oscillator that only needed a few ma. Then, a friend wondered why in the heck would anyone want an amplifier with less than 100% efficiency. After all, the whole idea of an amplifier is to get more out than you put in...right...?That three battery thing from DaveWing was hilarious. "Split positives" & Power lost to ground. What a hoot!...................My current Quixotic quest is the limitless number of wrong videos, papers (some by PhD's) and lesson plans that "explain" the "Bernoulli Principle" and Lift. I got three removed so far. Side hobby.Some call it pathological science, my term is Lemming Science. My other son is an Aeronautical Engineer. (yes, he *is* a rocket Scientist) AND Pigs Fly Just Fine With Enough Thrust.[and, yes, I know the lemming story is an urban myth created by Disney, but nobody else does].(other quests: k9dci.home.comcast.net)Very experienced EE, teacher and Technical / Science Advisor @ Challenger.org. I may poke my nose in other people's business here once in a while...--'nuf fer now, Cheers, Steve... Story for my students: I used to say that 'I know everything.' A good friend took me aside and said that I should soften a little and develop a little humility. I thought about it and changed to saying that 'I know everything, except how to be humble.'...A while later, that same friend praised me for changing my mantra and, thus, showing at least a little humility. Cool ! I could say that 'I know everything.'http://www.despair.com/elitism.html

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2015, 04:43:05 am
content: Quote from: Steve45N on February 02, 2015, 04:23:47 amWe've been there already, and it didn't turn out pretty:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/transitor-the-base-pin/msg575545/#msg575545But anyway, hi, and welcome!

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2015, 05:12:37 am
content: QuoteI think that's in itself something of a simplification. Copernicus wasn't satisfied to track the movements of the planets across the sky, he wanted to know why they did that. Ptolemy could have told you just as well where to find Mars in the sky, given enough epicycles. The crucial difference wasn't the evidence, it was theory.In general, evidence without a fully coherent theory is disqualified from being scientific. After all, there are mountains of evidence to support miracles by Mary, Mother of Christ. The Victorians had a word to describe people who relied exclusively on their evidence: "empirics". It meant a kind of quack, a charlatan.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2015, 05:24:57 am
content: Quote from: helius on February 02, 2015, 05:12:37 amBut the theory of the paths followed by planets is the law of gravity, which is simply a descriptive mathematical framework. We don't really know why gravity exists or why it follows those laws. We know how to describe the paths followed by planets with enough precision to predict exactly when and where an eclipse will take place, which is no small achievement, but we still don't know what gravity is or how to make it.

author: Steve45N
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 02, 2015, 06:09:37 am
content: Hi Ian,OH ! HELP ME UP ! I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING...Thanks for the heads up (so to speak).I will NOT go into it here, but if you want the real story, I can send something.It is only the amateurs who debate that stuff. What goes on around a wingis well understood, just like the electronics stuff on this forum and not too difficult to understand. Just *why* this happens is actually due to the big bang, but *what* ain't that difficult, IF you know the fundamentals, just like in electronics, it all falls into place.As one of my friends used to say, If you don't like the laws of physics you'll just have to wait for the next big bang because they may very well be different then.I have a concept I call the "Floor of Understanding". Each of us has some level down to which we need, can handle, or want to understansd any given natural phenomenon ... at.E.G Hot air rises suffices for some. Another says, no, it doesnt and starts in with cold air, then another brings in buoyancy.... Each of these goes deeper and is correct, and not misleading...but bad bernoulli is crap...At the Challenger Center I have to explain things to students from grade 5, or lower, on up and a good understanding of the whole story on many fronts is critical. I will not simplify any science to the point that it is wrong. YES, You must gloss over some things to stay level specific without being flat wrong and misleading..It takes some work that some are too lazy to do. AND sometimes, you just have to say "I don't understansd it any better than this.". I heard it many years ago and it didn't satisfy me, but I was too busy with electronics to dig deeper. The "Bad Bernoulli" story that fast air reduces its pressure is crap and few question the lack of agreement with fundamentals and thus follow the Lemming route and accept Tinker Bell....I decided to put this fairy tale to rest (for myself) when I took over resurecting and supporting the full cockpit flight simulator our Challenger Center is so lucky to be the only to have....one.On the lift thing, I have found that each amateur tends to focus on only one aspect and ignore, or be ignorant of the whole story. Some authoritative reading and a few discussions with a couple of experts gets you to the whole story.Now, full disclosure-wise, I have seen that the experts also tend to place just a little more emphasis on one pet aspect, and, there is indeed still discussion only on the very most esoteric details, but they do agree on all the the major phenomena that 'play nice' with Newton and (the correct) Bernoulli around a wing. Are there some very esoteric details I still have to gloss over, yes.Now that I think of it, just like the Stone guy and DaveWing having the proverbial dangerous little amount of knowledge -- every sofa spud is an expert on lift and free energy.... and then, there are those many who do understand real science.Yes, I can and diserve to act arrogant about this, cuz I know....it took a year... Fortunately, one of the leading aerodynamics experts volunteers at another Challenger center opening the door to discussion...he he.(;-)Thanks again & Cheers, SteveI do go on, don't I...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2015, 07:26:51 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 31, 2015, 12:40:28 pmCorrect.Quote from: Fungus on January 31, 2015, 12:40:28 pmEr, no. The errors on a typical digital cable, whether its copper or optical are far from random. They may be highly structured, or even 100% repeatable. The errors come from reflections and the frequency/phase response of the cable making bits either marginal or strongly flipped. Neither of those make the positions of the errors at all random, and if the bits are strongly flipped they can be near 100% repeatable. Try a few crappy HDMI cables with 4k video, especially cables more than a couple of metres long. Displaying a fixed image you will typically see twinkly patterns at specific places on the screen, and you can often find areas when the error pattern is solid, with no discernable twinkle at all.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2015, 05:20:27 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 31, 2015, 01:54:29 amAnalog is provable too, just heed a high-resolution scope and audio spectrum analyzer: if you cannot measure the difference between ends of the cable with instruments that have at least an order of magnitude better accuracy than the average healthy human ear, you won't hear it either.The problem with audiophools is that they have deluded themselves into rejecting scientific proof of their delusion and there is a whole industry that has grown around nurturing it.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2015, 10:39:22 pm
content: Sometimes these cookies are right on

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2015, 10:41:15 pm
content: Quote from: Steve45N on February 02, 2015, 04:23:47 amHeh, I did that for a while too. It helps that NASA have web pages to refer to.The other memes that bug me are "scientists said heavier than air flying machines are impossible" or "scientists once proved bumblebees can't fly".

author: leppie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2015, 10:05:00 am
content: XKCD of today features the 'quantum vacuum'http://xkcd.com/1486/

author: firepower
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2015, 10:18:27 am
content: you beat me to it, lol

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 13, 2015, 12:38:34 pm
content: Quote from: leppie on February 13, 2015, 10:05:00 am

author: bootux
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 15, 2015, 08:49:51 am
content: hi,here's a funny thought: is the guy "depleting" the "quantum vacuum" within the battery in just 52h with a couple of leds?shouldn't we just stop him, it seems very dangerous

author: mux
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2015, 06:25:53 pm
content: Quote from: luky315 on February 01, 2015, 05:55:54 pmThis guy, Norberto Keppe, is just a goldmine of bullshit. Unimaginable piles of hokey pokey stuff he's published.

author: 13hm13
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2015, 04:15:20 pm
content: It doesn't matter what the person/company/org claims ... I mean you if you can get over 10 million views on YT with a claim like "Double Your Internet Speed for Free" ...... and (most importantly) YouTube places this video in the Category "Howto & Style" ... and you can run AdSense (Google's PayPerrClick ad service that many bloggers use) .... it's the $$ and fame and entertainment value .... I gave ThioJoe a thumbs up for holding that poker face and pulling a fast one ... but YT should know better than to put this video in anything but non-serious category.

author: sean0118
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2015, 11:35:17 am
content: Anyone else notice the "Free Energy Inverter" on Kickstarter?http://kck.st/1FadcsqEdit: Sorry, just realised it has already been posted in the "List of Dodgy Crowd Source Funded Projects" thread... right where it belongs

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2015, 01:53:34 am
content: imagine this... say a group of physicists got together and actually came up with some revolutionary new power source that was unlike anything we have working now. Like if the fusion guys had some breakthrough and figured that out in a way no one has thought of yet.... and then they started a kickstarter for it. How funny would that be when it actually worked.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2015, 05:11:04 am
content: They at least would have either a working prototype, or decent enough maths to show for it. Plus enough background so that you can check the work.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2015, 06:20:01 am
content: And claims that don't clearly conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2015, 06:26:46 am
content: i would atleast humour on a solution that appeared to break the law of thermodynamics, so long as they investigated enough to show that something funny was going on, and didn't abuse "magnets", "quantum power" etc, because like most of physics, the laws are correct, until they are proven wrong an re-written,

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2015, 11:54:41 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on May 02, 2015, 01:53:34 amWe can also imagine unicorns and flying pigs exist, it doesn't mean they do.There *may* be a practical way to get power from the quantum vacuum (or whatever) but it won't be invented by somebody who doesn't have a) A working machine, b) Can't explain the physics to you and c) Needs a kickstarter to get it going.

author: eneuro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2015, 09:47:22 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 02, 2015, 11:54:41 am@EEVblog featured circuit was quite easy to debunk, but try to explain those "raw footages"BTW: Raw footage claims and sugestion that it was continous recording turn on suspicious feeling that this video is manipulated, while still it is possible edit it frame by frameUpdate: Magnets are reused from hard drive and probably has nothing to do there, while there is another energized coil under table, I guessWhat do you think-what kind of wireless power transfer is used there or this video is a fake and simply batteries put back between recordings?

author: xDR1TeK
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2015, 10:01:15 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on May 02, 2015, 01:53:34 amWhy get peanuts when you can get gold by selling licenses out to companies to use your ideas?RAMbus was an engineering firm the sold paper. Never built anything.

author: lm3baker
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2015, 12:53:28 pm
content: QuoteNo wireless power, batteries under the magnet. It generates a consistent 6v DC and unless someone can point me to the rectifier, I don't see this working at all.That aside, a location next to a high powered MW or LW transmitter could see an AC voltage from such a coil for the same reason a Fluorescent tube will glow dimly.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2015, 09:30:54 pm
content: Quote from: xDR1TeK on May 02, 2015, 10:01:15 pmThat was kind of the point of my thought experiment. The only reason to do a kickstarter would be to mess with people since no one expects crazy kickstarters to actually work. They don't have to give away the fusion reactor on kickstarter, just make the rewards "I backed a fusion reactor on kickstarter before it was cool!" t-shirts or something.

author: wael
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 04:47:12 am
content: Thanks Dave, but what does the feedback capacitor do, how would be the signal without it ??