Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
2010/3/19 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry - Original Message From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 10:46:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Ok, I gave him the wiki reference. Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 7:34:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Nothing mysterious about this circuit, it's a silly boost converter without a load. See: target=_blank href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter; target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter 2010/3/18 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com;jedrothw...@gmail.com href=mailto: href=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com;jedrothw...@gmail.com ymailto=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com; href=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com;jedrothw...@gmail.com To: href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com; ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 5:22:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: By the way, I should say Thanks! for taking the time to post all these here. It's interesting, even if I don't believe for a minute that it's OU. Someone should communicate the gist of the comments here to the author of the video. Tell him to invest in an ammeter, for crying out loud. - Jed I am ignorant about electronics but I don't see what the fuss is about since it is all DC current. If you know the resistance and the voltage can't you safely infer that as the voltage rises and falls so does the current? No, V=R*I works only on a pure resistor. An inductor or a capacitor obey different laws. I still think that in certain simple circuits voltage measurements can serve as a pretty good indicator of current and power. Not here. Michel __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Neat new OCR technology
2010/3/19 Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com: ... if you convert a clearscan pdf back to image format in higher resolution e.g. 600 dpi (this can be set in editpreferencesconvert from pdfTIFFedit settings), make a new pdf from that, and re-do an OCR on it, interestingly the recognition accuracy is improved, Let me retract this, after experimenting on a few more pages it turns out the 2nd OCR pass makes roughly the same number of recognition errors as the 1st pass on average, what fooled me is that it doesn't do them on the same words. So there is no point really in going through the complexity and hard work of a 2nd pass. There is another use however, useful this time, of the trick of saving as tiff and re-pdf-ing before OCRing: it circumvents the Acrobat could not perform recognition (OCR) on this page because: This page contains renderable text. error you get on some documents, which annoyingly aborts the whole OCR process. If anyone knows of a simpler way, I am interested. Last point, I see they have integrated the OCR multiple files feature to the main menu in version 9, so one doesn't have to go through the batch processing procedure to OCR a large collection of documents. Much more convenient. Michel
Re: [Vo]:More tests from gotoluc
On 03/19/2010 12:58 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: test 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbgwlJx0zNw With only a signal generator attached. This is a variation on Stiffler's circuit, which, as you may recall, worked with just one wire from a signal generator connected. Capacitive coupling is very likely playing a role here. And, once again, the *only* way to be sure of what's going on is to measure the *POWER* coming out of the signal generator. And that can *ONLY* be done is to make simultaneous voltage and current measurements, at the signal generator terminals, and integrate their product. Note well: With this load, the voltage and current from the signal generator may very well not be -- are probably not -- exactly in phase with each other. During the part of the cycle where the voltage and current are going in different directions, power is flowing backwards into the SG. During the part of the cycle when voltage and current are going the same way, power is flowing forward out of the SG. So, as I said, the only way to find the total power out of the SG is to integrate the product of the voltage and current (which a digital scope such as the one used in these experiments may be able to do). The reason it's possible to have this behavior, where power flows from the SG to the circuit part of the time and from the circuit to the SG part of the time, is that both capacitors and coils store energy, and when they give it up, it can flow back into the source. Resistors don't store energy, they just throw it away, so when you're driving a resistor the current and voltage are always precisely in phase. ALL meters removed in the second half of this video. At the end he asks others to build the circuit and post their results. test 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgPR9r14zWE With a pick up coil. Green LED is used to provide a relative comparison between current from the mosfet vs current from output coil. Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
[Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
D. Goodstein, On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/ This is complete utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong letter to follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. The author claims that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that very little has changed sinced 1989. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the bad kind of cold fusion! 2010/3/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: D. Goodstein, On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/ This is complete utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong letter to follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. The author claims that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that very little has changed sinced 1989. - Jed
[Vo]:Moddel paper on energy extraction
Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods (Dated 30 October 2009) http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Moddel_VacExtrac.pdf Abstract In research articles and patents several methods have been proposed for the extraction of zero-point energy from the vacuum. None has been reliably demonstrated, but the proposals remain largely unchallenged. In this paper the feasibility of these methods is assessed in terms of underlying thermodynamics principles of equilibrium, detailed balance, and conservation laws. The methods are separated into three classes: nonlinear processing of the zero-point field, mechanical extraction using Casimir cavities, and the pumping of atoms through Casimir cavities. The first two approaches are shown to violate thermodynamics principles, and therefore appear not to be feasible, no matter how innovative their execution. The third approach does not appear to violate these principles.
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:05:04 -0800: Hi, [snip] Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me something about this? http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com [snip] I note that there is another paper on the site (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=168) that bears a striking resemblance to Horace's Deflation Fusion theory. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Moddel paper on energy extraction
On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods (Dated 30 October 2009) http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Moddel_VacExtrac.pdf Initially, an apparent exercise in circular reasoning: Pinto’s approach cannot work if the Casimir force is conservative. If so, no matter what process were used to separate the plates, it would require at least as much energy as had been extracted by their coming together. ... One might ask if it is possible to use ZPE to do the work on the Casimir plates necessary to reduce the attractive force or to convert it to a repulsive force. In this way, could a continuous cycle provide power? If such a ZPE-powered process were developed, net power could be extracted. However, the power would then be coming from the process that modified the Casimir plates rather than from cycling the spacing of the Casimir cavity plates. If my aunt were a man she couldn't be my uncle, because uncles are male. But, if my uncle had a sex change he could be my aunt, which would mean she, my aunt, then would be my uncle. If power can be extracted from the Casimir force then it the Casimir force is not conservative. The author then goes on to solidify a sensible viewpoint in my opinion: Our apparent lack of success in extracting energy from the vacuum thus far leads to two possible conclusions. Either fundamental constraints beyond what have been discussed here and the nature of ZPE preclude extraction, or it is feasible and we just need to find a suitable technology. If we can find the right surgeon then perhaps we can do the necessary job to convert my aunt into an uncle-aunt. While this is really a neat and understandable article, it does not address a multi-dimensional approach to Casimir force extraction: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf the potential for inertial drives: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf nor does it address the environment where the available vacuum energy is largest and thus practical extraction can most likely be accomplished, namely the nucleus: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:05:04 -0800: Hi, [snip] Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me something about this? http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com [snip] I note that there is another paper on the site (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=168) that bears a striking resemblance to Horace's Deflation Fusion theory. Thanks for posting that. I replied: This view looks very similar to my own, as exemplified in my “Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions Article”: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf; Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:add on: OU demonstrated ( with no secrets)
At 07:40 PM 3/17/2010, you wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: OK. I am just trying to understand what circumstances a voltage measurement by itself would be sufficient to prove OU. Never. Energy is measured by power expended over time. Electrical power is voltage times current. Voltage transformations occur under various conditions and can never indicate OU performance without current or power and time measurements. Well, that's not exactly true. Set up, say, an Orbo run by a battery. Capture power from the rotor with a generator and arrange this so that it charges the battery. If we can eliminate losses in the circuitry, and if the system is operating at unity, power in would equal power out. Over unity would produce excess power which could be used somewhere else. Now, replace the battery with a capacitor. Charge it first with the battery, so the initial condition is that pulling the battery has no *immediate* effect (the voltage doesn't change). If the system is operating at over unity (after deducting losses), the capacitor voltage will increase, if under unity, it will decrease. That's why using supercapacitors in place of the battery for Orbo was suggested as a test. They were claiming 200% operation, that should be plenty of power to stay over unity overall. Gee, they didn't do it! I wonder why not? The voltage on a capacitor varies directly with the stored power, it integrates it, so, indeed, that voltage is a measure of power generation or consumption. It's very simple, whereas power in a battery is really, really complicated.
Re: [Vo]:add on: OU demonstrated ( with no secrets)
At 03:14 PM 3/17/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: So, get rid of the battery -- I mean, *really* get rid of it, disconnect the wires at the battery terminals, and carry it a good distance away from the experiment -- and show the capacitor still charging itself up. Well, something has to drive the circuit. The whole thing will stop dead otherwise. That would be like expecting a Fleischmann Pons cell work without first doing electrolysis. It's different, actually. Electrolysis in a Fleischmann cell probably has very little to do with the nuclear reaction, it's just a way of generating deuterium gas right at the surface of the electrode. The point of Stephen's suggestion is to set things up so that the circuitry is driven by power from the capacitor. Sure, get the thing started with a battery, then, once it's up to operating voltages, disconnect the battery. If it's over unity, and with an efficient circuit, if the capacitor continues to charge for any significant time, you have proven over unity. (You could, I suppose, set up some system where a lot of power gets stored somewhere, that then transfers back to the capacitor charge slowly, but that would need to be pretty complex, probably. If the circuitry is simple, and you can keep the thing running, the capacitor isn't running down, which is much easier to measure than battery charge, you've got over unity. What ususally happens is that no, it isn't enough to increase the capacitor charge but that's just because our circuitry isn't efficient enough, we are working on that. What they are really doing is recycling power, and some of it is lost in each cycle, but they just look at what's coming in and not what's going out...
Re: [Vo]:OU demonstrated ( with no secrets)
At 01:24 AM 3/18/2010, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: He states that it must be OU because the output voltage goes above the battery voltage. B O G U S. If the output were charging the exact same battery, that would mean something. In this sense, it was correct that you can't tell from voltage alone. The same amount of power stored in a small capacitor would show a very high voltage, with a large capacitor a low voltage. However has he taken into account that the two coils form a transformer, and it's very possible that the secondary has more windings than the primary, so that the output voltage is higher than the input voltage? Lots of ways to do it. Voltage is like water pressure. With a constant pipe going up, you can tell how much water you have (and thus how much stored energy) by the pressure. But you can extract energy from a lot of elevated water and use it to raise a small amount of water much higher. Smaller pipe! If you simply connect the two pipes, the pressure will equalize, and the water will have a head that is the same, because the pressure does not depend on how much water you have, only the height of the column. But when a big column moves down, it generates so much power which can be used -- try some gears! -- to raise a small amount of water much higher. Other things being equal and without losses to friction, you could raise a certain amount of water twice as high as you lower half the amount of water.
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
I just realized I know Prof. Goodstein. Rob Duncan invited him to the seminar at U. Missouri last May. This book was published in January 2010. So, Goodstein has been made aware of facts about cold fusion, and he ignored them. What a travesty! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either? harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
At 01:07 PM 3/19/2010, you wrote: D. Goodstein, On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/ This is complete utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong letter to follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. The author claims that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that very little has changed sinced 1989. Page 129 he's clear that cold fusion was not fraud. Goodstein is a disappointment. Certainly he overstates the irreproducible thing, my impression is that he really hasn't done an overview and is relying on old information and what he knew before. You really should look at the next page. He acknowledges that fusion may have taken place in some of these experiments. His comments, in fact, cut both ways. However, given what we now know about the field and the overall body of research and what went wrong in 1989-1990, Goodstein's report is shallow, he's very ambivalent, as he was years ago. There is now a great deal more known, and with hindsight we really can understand the problems with the research. It's almost like he hasn't moved in, what, about 15 years? Overall, this has to be taken as a relatively positive publication, in spite of the obvious errors. He's acknowledging open research questions, he *attributes* the negative conclusions to scientists of the time, and says that the problem is that the normal process of science broke down and is staying broken down because nobody is listening. Well, it's not true that nobody is listening, but it's true, probably, in the circles he moves in! I suspect he'll come around, because it's going around. He hasn't painted himself into a corner, like others did, with confident, smug skepticism.
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
At 02:00 PM 3/19/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the bad kind of cold fusion! You know, he points out that it is not fraud to be wrong, and I'll point out that it is also not being a jerk to be wrong. That error shows that this wasn't well-considered. I.e., the error about loading of palladium and platinum into deuterium. He's also trying to support his friend Scaramuzzi with a comment that the loading (i.e., of deuterium into palladium, it doesn't load into platinum) is respectable, with only a tangential connection to cold fusion. Yeah, that's right! Anomalous heat or unexpected helium or whatever. Cold fusion? No. Maybe its a low-energy nuclear reaction, but fusion? No, we don't mention fusion around here, it makes the natives restless. We are researching anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system, you got a problem with that? I think you are being a little harsh, Michel. This reads to me like an essay or even a speech or something dictated off-the-cuff, it's certainly not well-edited and researched. But the basic message is actually positive. What did bad kind of cold fusion mean? Read the context and the time. At that point, there was muon-catalyzed fusion on the table, or the possibility that there was a very-low level form of other cold fusion, i.e., what Jones was reporting. That would be the good kind. Not so horribly controversial. But Fleischmann was reporting levels of heat that could only be from much higher levels of reaction. He's describing his distress at heating that his friend was involved in this nonsense. Bad kind is what he thought then. He then, next page, says that he has looked over the results carefully, and they are pretty impressive. Go back and read this again! He's complaining that the normal process of science isn't happening. If there are all these positive results, there should be people pouring over them to try to prove them wrong. Note the very obvious implication. Cold fusion has not been proven wrong. And in this he is 100% correct. He underreports the positive evidence, that's all. Scaramuzzi is only a small part of it.
RE: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
He's simply trying to cover his ASS... And give himself a way out. These people think politically, which is all about how to maintain whatever level of power/importance they've achieved... -Mark
[Vo]:Pi factor
The energy transfer between L and C as stored joules by the quantities; J= .5 CV^2 and J = .5 LI^2 and considering The I^2R heating loss of the inductor itself; when the transfer of energy between L and C as joules/sec becomes equal to the inductor heat loss wattage, by the inductor displaying a Q factor of 3.14; the oscillation of energy between the fields has become Pi times greater then its ordinary reactive state. HDN Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]:Pi factor
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Pi factor
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 11:18 PM
The energy transfer between L and C
as stored joules by the quantities;
J= .5 CV^2 and J = .5 LI^2
The quandary here is the fact when we measure either I or V by meter means,
this displayed value is the rms or averaged, and the true peak value is
therefore 1.4 times the reading. However even after making this corrective
manipulation of indicating true values, the comparison to actual energy
transfer over time falls short by pi times the amount of supposed energy
transfer. Here perhaps semantics, or wording of the involved process of
description might explain this apparent discrepancy that has long bothered me.
When we speak of energy transfer OVER TIME; the amount of energy being
transferred {in time itself] is only at a peak at a certain instant of time,
and therefore by using that derived peak value as the total amount of energy to
be transferred in time itself, a different answer is arrived at. The true
analysis should include the fact that the amount of energy being transferred
over time is itself not constant,(we need calculus) and in fact it
can be itself zero at certain time measurements of the time interval itself as
a cycle being measured. I am now wondering if this is the explanation for the
discrepancy of joules/sec vs wattage measurements in comparison for equal
energy transfer resonant circuits.
and considering The I^2R heating loss of the inductor
itself; when the transfer of energy between L and C as
joules/sec becomes equal to the inductor heat loss wattage,
by the inductor displaying a Q factor of 3.14; the
oscillation of energy between the fields has become Pi times
greater then its ordinary reactive state.
HDN
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
