[NewCandle] "Sling effect" metaphor

[Jones Beene]

The sling and double-sling effect are discussed on the
German "semi-crank ?" site here:

http://www.evert.de/eft708e.htm

There are probably other names for this as well, and
the reason it is mentioned here now, wrt a completely
different subject, is that it suggests a mechanical
way that a purely passive blocking system for one form
of energy, can boost the total output in another form,
so long as net losses are minimized. IOW one can block
linear motion to increase circumferential (angular
momentum) and so forth. To me it is an apt analogy for
an EM systems, but only valuable in either type if the
net gain does not include low grade heat, as is most
often the case.

In effect, a dielectric or semiconductor which
presents an impediment to electron flow can possibly
boost the net energy available in photons, so long as
there is little waste heat. 

All of this came up in response to Bill's mention of
'resonant rise' and Robin's observation that the Imris
patent presents a similar 'resonant rise' MO and
principle to the Stiffler CE7 circuit.

US Patent # 3,781,601
Canadian Patent # 951836

"Optical Generator of an Electrostatic Field having
Longitudinal Oscillations at Light Frequencies for Use
in an Electrical Circuit"

Pavel Imris was awarded this expired patent in the
1970s. The patent is most interesting in that it
claims a device having an output power nine times
greater, in photons, than the equivalent input power.
The device uses a series of xenon tubes- quartz glass
envelope which contains xenon gas under pressure (the
higher the pressure, the greater the gain of the
device).

The same kind of resonant rise apparently is at work
as in the CE7.

Each Imris lamp can work to its full specification on
less than one-fortieth of its rated input power.
However, these tubes are not nearly as efficient
initially, in terms of lumens per watt as the LED; but
even so- the claimed light output power of more than
nine times the input power should have made it a
commercial item, despite the exorbitant cost of xenon.


Or else the claims are overblown. Does anyone know?

Anyway, from the point of view of any individual lamp,
before using this Imris series circuit, it required 40
watts of electrical input power to give 8.8 watts of
light output, an efficiency of about 22%. In one test,
the input power per lamp was 0.9 watts for the 8.8
watts of light produced, which is a lamp efficiency of
more than 900%. Quite an impressive performance for so
simple a device, but FAR FAR less so than the Stiffler
LED circuit which is now driving an enormous # of LEDs
with almost no input.

I is just a matter of time before the light from a
future incarnation of Stiffler's circuit is focused to
a solar cell so that the device can float, and remove
all possible doubt that ground, or a tiny signal can
be powering the large array of LEDs.

Anybody want to guess how many LEDs he is driving with
this circuit, as of last night? I'm not going to tell
your let, but let's just say, as a teaser, that it
will blow your mind (or light-up-your-life, as the
case may be).

Jones