On Dec 6, 8:03 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"little proof": Howard Johnson's and Reidar Finsrud's magnetic motors

Howard Johnson: Typical magnet motor nonsense but was granted a
patent.

Reidar Finsrud: A VERY high efficiency "perpetual mobile" that is one
of the finest works of art on the planet! However it does NOT "run
forever". It does run for a very long time, though.

You forgot to mention those "perpetual motion" clocks. They DO "run
forever"!!!

----------------------------
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:78318ac5-07a6-41b4-8d5f-134971ed3f7c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...



On Dec 5, 10:32 pm, "Don Kelly" (arsehole who doesn't trim quotes)
d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
The problem with electrostatic machines (and such motors and generators
exist)- in addition to the necessarily high voltages is that the energy
density of such devices, at best, is far inferior to that of
electromagnetic
machines. Thus a 1HP motor might require several thousand volts and be
the
size of a house. Note the sizes mentioned in your reference. These are
practical considerations that limit electrostatic machines- too big, too
high a voltage and too expensive. The "sprayers" are a minor problem and
are
a bit more efficient overall than friction contacts. Size is the major
problem (this has a great deal to do with the difference between mu0 and
epsilon0) and is one that can't be wished away.

What about with PZT? LNT? ST? BT? CsF? CF? CsNa plasma?

What about this collection of initials?
Do you have anything useful to say about them?

On Dec 5, 10:32 pm, "Don Kelly" (arsehole who doesn't trim quotes)
d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
The problem with electrostatic machines (and such motors and generators
exist)- in addition to the necessarily high voltages is that the energy
density of such devices, at best, is far inferior to that of
electromagnetic
machines. Thus a 1HP motor might require several thousand volts and be
the
size of a house. Note the sizes mentioned in your reference. These are
practical considerations that limit electrostatic machines- too big, too
high a voltage and too expensive. The "sprayers" are a minor problem and
are
a bit more efficient overall than friction contacts. Size is the major
problem (this has a great deal to do with the difference between mu0 and
epsilon0) and is one that can't be wished away.

What about with PZT? LNT? ST? BT? CsF? CF? CsNa plasma?

"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9DZ5j.161$jq2.92@pd7urf1no...

Alternatively leave it "open circuit" but with a very
high impedance voltmeter across the capacitor - I would be curious about
your results.
This I have done , and did observe a noticable current. The values etc I
couldn't tell you at this point as it was a very rudimentary experiment.
You are unlikely to make the rod move fast enough to make
the inductance a factor so its presence should not be necessary Small C
and
small L means that with anything you can move manually, you are a long
way
from any conditions where the inductance will be important.

Thank you for that. To be honest I had very little reason behind the
inclusion of the inductor in the first place other than to observe any
choking that might occur.

Yes, as you predicted, you will have a change in the charge balance and a
current will flow in the external loop (which has a low impedance, quite
different from a large air gap in the device mentioned before -in which
the
current in the air would be extremely small-possibly not measurable).


Yes, very different indeed.

The force that you
apply to move the pen has a component due to the acceleration of the mass
of
the rod and also a component in that you are modifying the electrostatic
conditions in the system.

Yes, I beleive this is where the energy transfer must be happening in my
experiment.

The Swiss device looks interesting but there is the same problem that
occurs
with a lot of magnetic "free energy" machines -inadequate and
inappropriate
instrumentation as proper instrumentation requires a good knowledge of
what
is being measured and equipment well beyond that available at the nearest
Radio Shack.

There has never, to my knowledge, been a thorough testing of this
machine/machines. There are quite a few of them within the Merthinia
community of varying sizes and outputs, and the smaller ones are not
identical in operation to the original. However, the differences are
inconsequential apparently.
What is truly curious about thier very existence is the fact that there
appears to be no gain whatsoever in any fraud here. And that they have
been
used (or claim to be used) for over thirty years now. There has never
been
any monetary or political gain and all the available evidence is that the
community itself has very little interest in the attention these machines
have generated. Perhaps they are all sharing a similar delusion.

Time reveals all things, and perhaps thirty years isn't long enough.

I don't beleive these machines produce more energy than it takes to run
them, from a scientific perspective. However, from an entirely different
perspective, it is hard to ignore the simple fact that they actualy exist,
that they took much time and effort to build, and are in every way
worthless
to a community that by and large abhores publicity if they actualy don't
work.

Even Eienstein once stated that it would take as much energy to release
nuclear energy as would be returned in the process. A chain of
curiosities
regarding previously unobserved phenomena combined with a disciplined
approach eventualy lead to this conclusion being disproved. And even
Rutherford deemed it impossible. The problem there was that at first
glance
it would appear to violate conservation of energy I beleive. At first,
second, third, etc. glance it seemed impossible.

I don't beleive the "Testatica" produces more power than it takes to run
it.
But I don't disbeleive it either.

The idea behind all this is to try and produce either a solid state static
induction generator using wire for the circuitry rather than air. Or, if
that proves impossible, or too far beyond my capabilities (and that
certainly is true currently), a compact rotary device that uses a wire
circuit rather than air. And it must produce current suitable for
inductive
loads. If it could be entirely self exiting then I will have icing on my
cake.

I've been purchasing equipment, oscilloscope etc. and components, for a
couple of weeks now with the intention of doing some more rigorous
experiments with measured results. I'll post those results here as they
become available. And Don, you are more than welcome to offer suggestions
as to what experiments would be of interest to you, and I will endevour to
do them accordingly. As I shall with your current suggestions.

Thank you for taking the time and effort Don,
Highly appreciated,

Vince

Vince, there is still the problem of physical size which meant that
electrostatic machines were dropped long ago. It was not because they
couldn't be built but because they were overly large, expensive and
dangerous except for very low power applications for special purposes.
Yes,
you will be able to detect currents and voltages but actual power in and
out
measurements will need a deep pocket for suitable instruments.
What do you mean by a "solid state" induction generator?.
As for the Swiss device- there is the matter of proving it and that
appears
to be as far away as ever. Until then, I am extremely skeptical.

On Dec 6, 11:16 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Dec 6, 8:03 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

It's not nonsense. It was featurede in a scientific magazine (pop,
but better than nothing), with interview, readings, and successful
test runs in linear and circular modes. By the way, it does not need
any handey input for the rotor to make more than one revolution; and
likewise the rotor strip can be accelerated throuh and out of the
stator's magnetic field in both directions, rather than rock back and
forth as expected from a conservative field.

Reidar Finsrud: A VERY high efficiency "perpetual mobile" that is one
of the finest works of art on the planet! However it does NOT "run
forever". It does run for a very long time, though.

Forever is however long. The point is the ball makes much noise but
doesn't stop due to drag and dissipation for hours, or even weeks.

You forgot to mention those "perpetual motion" clocks. They DO "run
forever"!!!

Atmos or flywheels?

Forever is however long. The point is the ball makes much noise but
doesn't stop due to drag and dissipation for hours, or even weeks.

Not "much noise": Reported as loud as a Mosquito. but yeah, does seem
to run for weeks.

You forgot to mention those "perpetual motion" clocks. They DO "run
forever"!!!

Atmos or flywheels?

Atmos.

Which is where I'm making a point. Everyone thinks that "perpetual
motion" or "free energy" is impossible. And probably it is. BUT that
does not say there aren't OTHER UNKNOWN energy sources that can't be
tapped which to the uninformed give the appearance of a perpetual
motion machine! An Atmos clock is a perfect example for anyone not
understanding the works.

----------------------------
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
messagenews:78318ac5-07a6-41b4-8d5f-134971ed3f7c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.co

What about with PZT? LNT? ST? BT? CsF? CF? CsNa plasma?

They're elèctrets. Are their energy density not better than magnets'?

On Dec 6, 3:09 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Do you believe this? I don't. As with the various electromagnetic
machines
inadequate instrumentation can lead to wonderful results. note that the
one
thing that is lacking is adequate tests made by an independent and
competent lab. Somehow, any time this is done, it is time to bring out
the
excuses for failure. --

What I believe is of no consequence. I have not personally tested
these Swiss machines so I cannot comment as to the validity of the
results. However, there is considerable comment in the crank press
verifying interesting things apparently happening.

However, I personally HAVE tested a number of "free energy" "N"
machines and found them quite lacking. Also the various magnetic motor
devices tend to be lacking as well. People sort of forget that
electromagnetic fields are VERY perfect in accepting and giving up
energy. There is little room there for more energy out than you put
in.

Thus, I pretty much agree with your assessment except the part about
"independent and competent" labs. My experience is that they are
neither independent nor competent and generally have axes to grind to
about the same degree as the "peer-reviewed" press. Do you think that
big oil would allow any device to become known that would eliminate
the need for fuel in vehicles? Gimme a break! Do you think the
GOVERNMENT would not also be in lock-step with big business? Nay. The
only "independent and competent" lab I'd trust is experiments done by
me right in front of my fat little face with my own gear or gear I
trust. Hell, one of the largest and most "prestigious" "independent
labs" in the country pulled some of my work right out of publication
to cover it up!

Just look at the name-calling we've seen right here regarding "crank"
literature as mild as the Jefimenko books! Can you imagine the kind
of resistance and "debunking" REAL blockbuster discoveries left out of
control might engender? One of these days "science" is going to have
a LOT to answer for!

Sure, investigate these various "free energy " machines- there is the
possibility that one may really be a breakthrough- however, on the basis of
information presently available, there is nothing that is supportive of
that.

There is also the question of whether it is a good thing to produce
more energy than one puts in -particularly as it all will eventually end up
as heat.

----------------------------
Some years ago I had an idea.

On Dec 8, 3:30 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Sure, investigate these various "free energy " machines- there is the
possibility that one may really be a breakthrough- however, on the basis
of
information presently available, there is nothing that is supportive of
that.

There is "nothing" supportive of your statement that "there is nothing
that is supportive of that". I take it you mean nothing supportive of
that in the controlled "peer-reviewed" scientific official media.
Everybody in science knows that trying to publish a paper on the
'wrong' topic with the 'wrong' conclusion is a career-ender.

There is also the question of whether it is a good thing to produce
more energy than one puts in -particularly as it all will eventually end
up
as heat.

Holy Crap! Free energy machines can cause AGW??!!!. And you
published it on the INTERNET! I shudder to think what will happen
when Algore finds out this one! You work for Big Oil, right?

What is your problem?

My support is accumulated information/experience over the years and the
fact that conservation of energy has not failed yet. Could it fail-
certainly the possibility exists but waving magnets or electric charges
around doesn't do it. There could be some untapped source out there but
saying that such a source exists doesn't count.

----------------------------
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
messagenews:78318ac5-07a6-41b4-8d5f-134971ed3f7c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...



On Dec 5, 10:32 pm, "Don Kelly" (arsehole who doesn't trim quotes)
d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
The problem with electrostatic machines (and such motors and generators
exist)- in addition to the necessarily high voltages is that the energy
density of such devices, at best, is far inferior to that of
electromagnetic
machines. Thus a 1HP motor might require several thousand volts and be
the
size of a house. Note the sizes mentioned in your reference. These are
practical considerations that limit electrostatic machines- too big,
too
high a voltage and too expensive. The "sprayers" are a minor problem
and
are
a bit more efficient overall than friction contacts. Size is the major
problem (this has a great deal to do with the difference between mu0
and
epsilon0) and is one that can't be wished away.

What about with PZT? LNT? ST? BT? CsF? CF? CsNa plasma?

What about this collection of initials?
Do you have anything useful to say about them?

What is your problem?

My support is accumulated information/experience over the years and the
fact that conservation of energy has not failed yet. Could it fail-
certainly the possibility exists but waving magnets or electric charges
around doesn't do it.

There could be some untapped source out there but
saying that such a source exists doesn't count.

However, the proof is dependent on the claimant and so far no claimant has
come up with any proof.
Generally such claimants avoid serious study and analysis of their devices
and their instrumentation- Keelynet is full of such pitiful cases.

In these days with the various communication possibilities that we have (and
even before the net) any "Breakthrough" spreads around the world within a
day. There will be people out there- including some with access to
facilities to do proper studies - who will try things out.

Suppression by government or "big business" simply isn't going to work. The
rumours regarding this will never die -it is a useful refuge for losers-my
idea was rejected because big oil was afraid of it. Give me a break.

I am disappointed, I thought that you had the brains and the technical
knowhow to think, and be skeptical of claims that are "too good to be true".

Even those that you have investigated have failed critical examination so
why should anyone accept claims without thorough investigation?
When I say "nothing supportive" - I imply that I am looking for more than
hype- but for actual data rather than handwaving or somebody using grossly
inappropriate and inadequate instrumentation to augment the handwaving.

As for peer-reviewed papers- it is true that some good insights have been
turned down- I remember a rejection of one paper but after soothing my
bruised ego, I realized that the rejection was reasonable because I had not
done a good job in presenting an alternative viewpoint. Later, someone else
did a better job of presenting the same view and it was accepted.
Now, I could bitch about the system but I was the one who blew it so
bitching and complaining about the system is a fool's game. One could
publish somewhere else or rewrite taking into account the given reasons for
rejection -sulkingly claiming censorship doesn't cut it.

Suppose that there is a "free energy" device which somehow sucks in some
energy source that we don't know about- and an energy source that only
appears to operate in that particular device. The argument has been
presented (by others) that if the energy our from a device is greater than
the input energy, then there is an increase in total energy in the system -
some will be radiated but the rest is going to end up as heat- more than is
the situation now and also self perpetuating. Whether I believe this or not,
is moot, as you haven't presented a contradictory argument (Holy Crap!
doesn't count as an argument). it---and-no-- I am not working for big oil
( and don't support many of their practices).

Soooo- my opinion of such "free energy" machines is "show me" and press
conferences, videos and general handwaving don't count. Hard measurements
with adequate instrumentation is much more convincing.