A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[tvtech]

Yes it's Dave from EEV. I have learned a lot from this Video below. Sorry that none here that are EE's ever try this. Had to link to another competing Forum to learn. I hope nobody minds. Delete at will Mods.

Regards,
tv

 

[tcmtech]

Yea well take this.

.

BTW I recomend hitting yourself in the head with a large hammer a few times followed by getting very very high in order to follow this guys nonsensical babble.

 

[tvtech]

Bit of a mad Professor in your Video above^^^

You OK tcm?

Edit: Watched the whole Video now....yes a hammer is required

Regards,
tv

 

[steveB]

He only debunked one example. If you believe it is possible, debunking one example proves nothing.

It seems to me that the search for over unity devices is not really a search for over-unity at all. These guys (the non-scammers only, I mean) are searching for a new form/method to obtain energy from some unknown source. If you were to discover an over unity device, then you would study it, find that actual source of the energy, and then name and quantify that source of energy. Then your device is no longer an over-unity device, but just a new invention and a nobel prize worthy discovery.

I think the search itself is a worthy one, but these examples are alway given by either scammers, or people that just don't understand science well enough. Using standard technology is not going to uncover new physics, any more than panning for gold in your bathtub will make you rich.

 

[nsaspook]

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
https://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/

 

[JoeJester]

tvtech,

Dave Jones joins a line of practicing engineers on the web. Beenthere (now deceased) authored a couple of threads about junk science , Meyers, Over-unity, et al in the Members lounge at AAC. They are sticky notes, and forever hold their position in that area.

Of course on of my favorite sayings was:

Rules
1. Theory Works
2. In the unlikely event that theory doesn't work, your looking at the wrong theory. Refer to Rule 1.

 

[killivolt]

42 min in the vid he calls....bullshi.... to free energy. I snapped through the vid to find it. Took me 3 min.

Just saying.

kv

 

[tvtech]

Remember part of the thread title was "free energy misconceptions".
I believe he addressed this particular one very well.

Stay well Guys,
tv

 

[blueroomelectronics]

Anytime you put "free energy" or "overunity" in a forum post you draw in the wing-nuts like moths to a flame.

 

[steveB]

Remember part of the thread title was "free energy misconceptions".
I believe he addressed this particular one very well.

Stay well Guys,
tv

Yes he did. Another misconception that did not show up in that demonstration is the use of power meters meant for AC power readings. These are often designed for sine waves, and if non-sinusoidal signals are present, the power reading is inaccurate. Hence, the guy thinks there is more power out than in. But, it's just a measurement error.

 

[tvtech]

Yes he did. Another misconception that did not show up in that demonstration is the use of power meters meant for AC power readings. These are often designed for sine waves, and if non-sinusoidal signals are present, the power reading is inaccurate. Hence, the guy thinks there is more power out than in. But, it's just a measurement error.

Like me Steve.

Doing the whole UPS and Battery backup and Charging thing and Solar....again ...was there and played with Cyclons and quick charging and all Years ago.

In 2004 when I started on this Mission....true Sine Wave Inverters were....scarce. Modified Sine Wave was all that was available at a realistic price...

Installed a system for my Sister and all on their Rural farm...no Microwave ovens or any heaters allowed and all..basic.

Lo and behold (I only found out later)......they were going through fans and anything with windings....quickly.
I found out seeing my Sister manually starting a room fan she had recently bought....with her fingers to get it spinning...

I said "why are you doing that??". She said "these cheap fans don't last....we have another 5 of these we have gotten rid of in the last few Years...

I initially made the UPS system for their TV and Satellite Decoder and stuff that is SMPS. As you know, SMPS input is turned into DC anyway...

So these failures....and nobody said anything....you probably can picture my troubled face when I saw this

Built and installed and used differently....

Regards,
tv

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

Wow, you have to admire the dedication to debunking going on in this video
It's nice to see for a change, rather than such extraordinary claims.
There is such a thing as free energy, but it is very rare and usually not something we can tap into. More about that in a second, but first some comments on the video.

First, this is the "Brinkmann" circuit, which appeared in one of their first LED flashlights way back when small white LEDs had first begun to hit the market. I had given a complete analysis of this circuit way back then on "How Stuff Works" but i think they deleted that section now. I also had a complete schematic posted on my web page before AOL discontinued "AOL Home Town".
The key to that circuit operation i am not sure was depicted well enough in the video, so i'll mention it here. The key is that the lower NPN transistor gets forced out of saturation by the rising collector current, and that is actually what makes the voltage rise fast enough to allow the feedback capacitor to hold it's charge long enough to reverse bias the upper PNP transistor. If this happened slowly, the cap would loose it's charge and would not be able to reverse bias the PNP. Of course reverse biasing the PNP is what makes it turn off and enter the second half cycle of operation.

Second, what is amazing is that the guy that he is talking about in the video did not realize that the toroid cores constituted an actual inductor. That's almost too hard to believe, but apparently true. So we know the level of technical skill on behalf of the would be 'inventor' is extremely low and not very well suited for this kind of task. The only other possibility is that they knew there was no truth to the claims but were still looking for some temporary notoriety.

I think Dave did a really good job at debunking, taking the time to explain, analyze, and even build and reproduce as a proof of concept, or should i say as a lack of proof of concept ha ha
I cant think of anyone else that would be willing to take this debunking task this far. I think i myself would have stopped when i found out the core was not being considered to be an inductor (big, big, chuckle here).

Now back to the real free energy...

Sounds strange right? It should, because it is very rare when we can actually get something like this to work.
First, i'd like you to note that most responses we know of have both a sinusoidal part and exponential part. The exponential part usually has effect during the first moments of operation when something is first turned on and that determines how fast the DC value builds up until we reach the steady state. During this time, any energy that enters the system may stay there, even though the steady state varies up and down sinusoidally. If this energy comes from the same source that we use to power the circuit, then it can not be free energy. But if it comes from a source that we dont have to replenish, then it can be considered free energy. Obviously this only works when there is a source available that does not have to be replenished, such as a gravitational field.
So at least one application is where we have to fly a spacecraft from point A to point B, and we happen to have a planet in between somewhere. It is very likely, or at least possible, that we can find a flight trajectory that takes us close to this planet and at the right speed so we dont get sucked in by the field, such that the gravitation force provides some temporary extra thrust, and thus saves fuel. It is entire possible that with a limited amount of fuel we can reach our intended destination because of that very planet and its placement whereas if that planet wasnt there we might run out of fuel first.
That is one application, and another potential application is somewhere in deep space, have two (or more) magnets mounted on a rigid non magnetic shaft where the two (or more) were spaced apart from each other. Then, using an initial launcher, shoot a steel ball around the first magnet in a trajectory that allows it to reach the other magnet on a trajectory that allows it to reach the first magnet again. The problem here though is that the effect is not repeatable. Back in the 1990's i actually did the calculation for this and found that provided there were no other losses the energy gained getting to one magnet was lost getting back to the other magnet. So even without any other effects, the best we could ever get would be similar to a superconductor, where you can have a perpetual current but cant extract any energy or the current dies. Thus if we tried to extract any energy from the ball it would eventually stop moving.
But in the case of the spacecraft, it's a one time only extraction from a source that is not part of our principle system and does not need to be replenished, so we save fuel.

So the point is, dont give up on free energy but dont fall victim to false claims. Remember that in the spacecraft the astronauts could have died in space had they not considered all possible interpretations of "free energy".

 

[JoeJester]

Tvtech,

Even if you put together a lare team of experienced engineers to supervise a larger team of engineers of varying experience, and throw in some rabid hobbyist, you still would not have enough forces to debunk the ******** out tthere on the internet.

As long as it took jones to address the issue is indicitive of their disdain for "junk science."

Students looking for the quick answer will plagerize a circuit from the internet then come running for help to get it to work.

Mankind will never cause the true believers to submit to good science.

 

[tvtech]

It's OK Joe

I only posted it because I found it very interesting...that I could sit through an expensive (for me) 46 Minute video

Regards,
tv

 

[JimB]

MrAl wrote:

Second, what is amazing is that the guy that he is talking about in the video did not realize that the toroid cores constituted an actual inductor. That's almost too hard to believe, but apparently true.

I agree with you, but, if the originator of the circuit thought that there was "no inductor" what was his purpose in putting the toroid cores on the wire?

Or, was the original statement "no inductor" meant to convey that there was not a discrete component identifiable as an inductor.

I have notice a couple of times here on ETO that some people have a mental block at the idea of winding wire into coils, even the 6 or so turns required on the toy FM transmitters.
So maybe the use of a handfull of big chunky toroids on a length of wire saves the helically challenged from winding an obvious inductor.

Just the ramblings of my bemused old brain.

JimB

 

[JimB]

At the very start of this thread TVtech wrote:

Yes it's Dave from EEV. I have learned a lot from this Video below. Sorry that none here that are EE's ever try this. Had to link to another competing Forum to learn.

I would like to explore the words:- Sorry that none here that are EE's ever try this.

What are you saying here TV?
Are you saying that we never delve into the detailed workings of circuits in general?
or
That you are dissapointed that we have never analysed this particular circuit?

I am not trying to pick an argument or anything like that, I am just interested in your thoughts behind the statement.

JimB

 

[tvtech]

Flames...

I found the Video interesting. Dave put's his balls to the wall with the stuff he chooses to comment on. And doe's so accurately and pulls no punches...
He is not the only active EE I can learn from.

Common, surely one here at ETO can do the same??

That's about it. A Video or something. Not just words but pictures/a video too. Shoot me down. Fact is I learned something over there and watched the whole thing to the end. An old Buzzard like me found it interesting

Just imagine clever Kids watching stuff like that?

Regards,
tv

 

[tvtech]

At the very start of this thread TVtech wrote:
I would like to explore the words:- Sorry that none here that are EE's ever try this.
JimB

Sorry Jim

You Guys do the best with your time you have available to help the Forums here. Not your full time occupation.

I feel like a real s*** now. Once again I apologize.

tv

 

[JoeJester]

Tv,

As i stated, jones is one of many. You must subscribe to his videos or forum or something.

The new york times in 1888 identified a practioner of junk science, and the article was reprinted in a professional book of the time. I transcribed the article from google books copy ... The title was Man's Credulity. I posted it over at aac, and im on my phone right now. Scammers scam. It's been that way since the begining of time.

 

[Ratchit]

To the Ineffable All,

All of you should give thanks that no method of creating free energy at an unlimited power and sustainability level exists now, or appears to be universally available to anyone in the future. Otherwise, this planet Earth will be crisped or vaporized by mankind's "creative destruction" tendency sooner rather than later. Ratch