<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dr Stiffler wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<b>It's close to being back up. Apache is installed and in the
process
of converting from (.asp) to (.php).</b><br>
</blockquote>
It seems to be up again, but now one needs a password in order to
browse it!<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite"><b>There
is nothing wrong with your idea, you have or can see in the
web pages that this was looked at from the very start, followed by
digital switching. Yet I have repeatedly stated the web was far behind
the work. </b></blockquote>
Yes I would be surprised if you hadn't considered a switching system.
I was starting to read more information when it went down again.
Something I can't understand is why you would start messing with water
hydrolysis or doing heat calorimetry when you apparently have something
as ideal and as easily measurable as electrical overunity!?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite"><b>Switching
configurations are not required.</b><br>
</blockquote>
That sounds exciting.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:48E63BD6.5020009@cyllene.uwa.edu.au" type="cite">...
Such a
self-runner would really be something to get excited about as it would
be obviously and undeniably overunity! <br>
</blockquote>
<b>Maybe you would be do kind to define what you mean by 'Over
Unity',...</b></blockquote>
I am simply using the term it in the commonly accepted way. Type it
into <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.answers.com">www.answers.com</a>
and you get "The hypothetical continuous operation
of an isolated mechanical device
or other closed system without a sustaining energy source." Of course
it can be argued that there must always be a sustaining energy source
(it might be for instance "spacial energy" or "vacuum fluctuations"
VF), but as long as this source remains unrecognized, then the system
remains by definition overunity. As soon as the new energy source is
identified so that it can be included in the accounting, then one would
expect
conservation of energy/mass/VF to hold.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite"><b>do
you consider this to be some form of energy generation or creation?
You see I do not, you do not get something for nothing and Nature does
allow you to access energy that is not 'Free' yet appears by convention
to be so. SEC, Spatial Energy Conversion, the ability to pull from the
'Natural' Energy Lattice energy that is NOT Free. Of course you might
have hundreds of questions, yet I will not present them at this time,
SEC is not Magic, it is not Free and it is indeed part of the fabric of
out existence.</b><br>
</blockquote>
I don't understand your quibble about this energy being "free". If I
am adrift in the ocean on a life raft, then salt water is essentially
free. If we exist in a seething
cauldron of energetic vacuum fluctuations which permeate all matter
(and in fact keep matter in existence), then there is certainly a sense
in which this energy can be regarded as "free" - I can obtain it
anywhere and in essentially unlimited quantity.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:48E63BD6.5020009@cyllene.uwa.edu.au" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I have not been able to model the exciter
in
'MicroCap', I do not know Spice but would welcome help here. If a model
could be derived, ESEG may really be something of value. <br>
</blockquote>
I'm not surprised you are having problems attempting to model it. I
can see no reason for it to oscillate at all - there seems to be no
positive feedback path that I can discern. So my guess is that your
lack of shielding anywhere is allowing feedback to occur by unexpected
capacitive or inductive coupling. Until you can find out what this
feedback path is and quantify it somewhat, it will not be possible to
model the circuit's operation. <br>
</blockquote>
<b>You have totally missed what I have stated from the start of SEC,
'The Exciters are (Negative Resistance) Bifurcating Oscillators". Your
feedback is the negative resistance provided by the transistor. Few
transistors will work as SEC Exciters. It can be modeled if one can get
a handle on the energy returned from the lattice, the return energy is
what drives the transistor into 'Negative Resistance'.<br>
</b></blockquote>
I didn't miss your description, I simply had to ignore it as I could
attach no meaning to it. I could find no commonly accepted meaning for
your term "bifurcating oscillator" so I assumed that you must have
invented it yourself. I could have asked what you meant, but since
question and answer has such a long turn around a more efficient
approach might be to briefly define an invented term at the time of
using it. If you were writing something for publication, there is
typically no avenue for query and so you would have to do this or fail
to communicate.<br>
<br>
It also appears that you may be using the term "negative
resistance" in an uncommon manner, or at least if you
do mean the normal thing, you have not indicated the two
terminals between which a negative resistance appears. So maybe we can
explore this a little. I am sure you appreciate that the normal
character
of a negative resistance is one in which an increase in applied voltage
across two terminals results in a decrease in current draw, or
alternatively
an increase in applied current produces a decrease in voltage drop.
For example a neon lamp has a V-I region in which it behaves as a
negative
resistance - and a neon lamp can therefore be used as an amplifier or
configured as an oscillator.<br>
<br>
It is usually the case that a negative resistance is apparent at DC -
thus one can plot the V-I curve slowly point by point and observe the
negative slope. I don't believe that there is any way of obtaining
such a negative slope at DC from a circuit containing a single bipolar
transistor wired together with passives (but I would be delighted to be
shown wrong). Consequently I imagine that your negative resistance
only appears under the rapidly changing conditions of oscillation?
While this is not normal, I accept that this could occur - and I would
be interested to know between which two terminals the negative
resistance is supposed to appear?<br>
<br>
To advance the discussion I would like to point out that besides a
negative resistance (which should work down to DC), one can just as
easily have a negative impedance (ie a negative inductance or
capacitance) which of course only appears under AC conditions. Such
devices are readily synthesized for instance with passives and an
op-amp. If readers are wondering how to work with such devices as
negative impedances, it is easy - one might for instance wire them in
series say with a normal passive impedance and notice that the V-I
characteristic of the combination indicates that there is less series
impedance in the circuit than the passive device you have added in
series. Thus the active device is behaving as a negative impedance
reducing the value of the combination below that of the passive device
alone.<br>
<br>
I find it hard to believe that there is any magic going on in a
standalone BJT that has remained undiscovered all this time. Consider
the extent to which these devices have been analyzed and subjected to
every possible biasing condition and excited at every possible
frequency on every pin in order to characterize and optimize them. If
there is some condition in which a negative resistance appears between
two terminals I am sure it would have been noticed by now!<br>
<br>
On the other hand if you have wound your own inductor with some special
core material it is just possible that there is some magic going on in
there. (However I would have expected the inclusion of a permanent
magnet somewhere to cohere the VF!!!). But lets consider your inductor:<br>
<br>
If we disregard stray electrostatic and magnetic coupling, then it only
has two terminals, and pretty much the only thing that can happen with
two terminals is to have a potential difference across them and a
current flowing between them. If the device is linear (ie such that
twice the voltage gives twice the current at frequencies of interest)
then the device can be completely characterized by its impedance as a
function of frequency and this can readily be measured with a dynamic
signal analyzer (DSA). Impedance is of course the ratio of voltage to
current and needs to be a complex value to take account of phase. My
point here is that if there is some magic going on in this component,
then it can be measured in isolation and any negative impedance effect
determined without the added complexity of having to be wired into an
oscillator with a special transistor etc. If you think there might be
some magic in your inductor, I would be happy to have a go at
characterizing one of them with a DSA. (Characterizing it from DC to
10MHz would be easy, but above that I would need to learn how to use
the RF box that comes with the DSA)<br>
<br>
Aside from these two components (and possible output to input coupling
which you don't think is happening or important) it is very hard to see
that any of the other components could be doing anything unusual. So
if neither of these main two components in isolation has any magic,
then one can imagine that maybe the magic is an emergent phenomenon
that only occurs when the components operate as a system. This really
means that they must be interacting in some way. In this case I feel
that in order to make progress in understanding what is going on, one
really needs to explore these interactions by doing tests such as
adding screening between sections of the circuit and around individual
components. For instance if one puts a standard metal can around the
inductor, does the circuit still oscillate with the can floating. What
about if the can is connected to the negative supply, or the positive
supply, or the collector of the transistor. If it stops oscillating
then why is that? Is the transistor no longer acting as a negative
resistance? How does adding a screen around the inductor change what
is going on inside the transistor? I am sure you appreciate that there
are many tests that could be done in an attempt to sniff out
interactions between circuit elements. Maybe you have done this type
of test - in which case I should be very interested to read the results
in an effort to hypothesize what might be going on.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite"><b>Forget
every thing you know.</b></blockquote>
Sorry but this is not the way progress is made in science. What we
know is the accumulated result of many many careful and repeatable
measurements by expert researchers which has been built up brick by
brick into a body of thoroughly reliable experience and understanding.
If there is a phenomenon which is not covered, then a new brick must be
added to cover the new phenomenon. Nothing need be discarded as it is
all known to work very well indeed for the situations to which it
applies.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E91B35.8080900@embarqmail.com" type="cite"><b>Build
an Exciter and see what it does.
Then try to marry it with current teachings. Please, I have been at
this far to long to go over and over the same old things. I Welcome
anyone to provide an alternative answer to what a SEC Exciter is able
to do.<br>
</b></blockquote>
In your opinion what is the most surprising thing that your circuit is
able to do?<br>
<br>
Presumably you have an RF generator at your disposal - have you tried
to obtain similar effects using that? Why should someone else attempt
to carry out tests for which you are already ideally setup to do and
have an interest in? Science is primarily about discovering truth even
though setting up puzzles and challenges as you seem to want to do has
its place and may form part of that process. Ideally your main desire
should be to discover truth, not just get pleasure from making
professional scientists and clever hobbyists scratch their heads over
the effects you can obtain from a simple circuit. (Mind you that is fun
isn't it!)<br>
<br>
Simply lighting LEDs with a single wire doesn't seem very difficult to
achieve with a standard RF generator. But if you can obtain more
photons from an efficient LED with your exciter than can be obtained
with the same amount of DC power, then as I have indicated already,
that is very significant and is worth publishing for the advancement of
science. In that case you would need to measure this quite carefully
and intelligently - not just note that they look brighter.<br>
<br>
If you say that it can cohere energy from space such that more energy
is given out than you have to supply (ie overunity), then indeed that
is truly wonderful and there can be no alternative answer. But to
prove it is not measurement error, it would be ideal to be able to make
it self-run! Then it becomes interesting whether it can self-run
inside an electrical and/or magnetic shield.<br>
<br>
I look forward to being able to read more from your web-site after you
have updated it. Maybe you can indicate how a password may be obtained?<br>
<br>
J.<br>
</body>
</html>