Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork

  • 51 Replies
  • 3732 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2018, 02:27:06 PM »
No, instead it uses people physically moving it to generate the potential.
<< Irrelevant! None of those are "the electrically driven tuning fork" >>

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2018, 02:47:24 PM »
No, instead it uses people physically moving it to generate the potential.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITIONAL 450 MV:
mV not MV, and again, that is explained. You not liking it doesn't mean it magically isn't explained.

Here are some quotes for you:
"To bring the device into operation the switch is left open, the magnets are moved slightly
apart, and the sliding coil set into various positions, with a wait of several minutes between
adjustments.
The magnets are then separated still further, and the coils moved again. This process is
repeated until at a critical separation of the magnets an indication appears on the voltmeter.
The switch is now closed, and the procedure continued more slowly. The tension then
builds up gradually to a maximum, and should then remain indefinitely. "

"On 1.7.46 experiments were being continued after three days of fruitless adjusting, and
when the magnets were at a separation of about 7 mm. the first small deflection was noted
The switch was closed and by slow adjustment of the sliding coil, and by increasing the
separation of the magnets to just over 8 mm, by 11 a.m. the tension was raised to 250
millivolts and by 12.30 p.m. it was 450 millivolts."

Notice how they are applying mechanical energy by moving the components which results in the increased potential?
So no, it is explained, quite easily. There is no magic energy from nothing.


Unless you explain the 450 mv, I win.
I have explained it, you lose.

since you do not accept the existence of the potential.
When I say potential I mean electrical potential, as measured in volts, not your nonsense.

Two simple ball lightning spheres produced 10 megatones of explosives energy (TNT equivalent).
Again, that doesn't matter. Unless you can show they magically appeared without taking in any energy, it is pointless.

What you are doing is like saying lightning is free energy, just because you ignore how the energy gets there in the first place.


The batteries cannot explain the huge difference in the output current measured.
Why not?
Repeating the same quote doesn't address the question.
You need to address the fact that there is a third battery which wasn't measured and that they didn't actually measure the power being drawn from the batteries.

Unless you explain the readings of the bifilar Tesla coil I win.
You sure do like baselessly asserting you win.
I can do the same:
Unless you can stick to the topic I win. That means if you bring up the coil again, before we have finished discussing the prior stuff, you lose, I win.
Got it?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6747
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2018, 02:56:22 PM »
Notice how they are applying mechanical energy by moving the components which results in the increased potential?
So no, it is explained, quite easily. There is no magic energy from nothing.


Go ahead and move around magnets and coils, you'll get nothing at all.

YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE 450 MV found by the British Secret Service report.

The mechanical energy of moving the components has nothing to do with the 450 mv found in the experiment.

Where did the 450 mv come from?

Be sure to understand that your readers do not appreciate your bullshitting them.


Unless you explain the readings of the bifilar Tesla coil I win.

Very same situation.

It is not rocket science.

INPUT: 980 W

OUTPUT: 2825 W

You cannot explain it, can you?

The very same situation.

The Tesla bifilar coil defies everything you wrote.



Tesla was a pioneer in the use of the double torsion concept in theory of electromagnetism.

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-512340-coil-electro-magnets

"The new idea of this patent seems to be that inductors have self-capacitance. Unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. Tesla intended (and stated) these coils will cancel the self-induction, which in common electrical science means the inductive impedance is canceled by capacitive inductance hence it is a self resonant device (it has its own resonant frequency)."



"A standard solenoidal-wound coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts across it
will have a difference of 0.1 volt between turns.

• A BIFILAR-wound coil of the same number of turns will have a potential of 50 volts between turns.

Because the stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages,
the energy in the BIFILAR Coil will be 50 squared / .1 squared  =  2500 / .01   =   250,000  times greater than the standard coil."

http://aetherwizard.com/tesla/bifilar_electromagnet.htm


Tesla bifilar coil experiments done by JNaudin Labs

http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils




Test #1



Test #2



Test #3







JPL/CalTech have copied Tesla's design:

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2311.html

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2018, 03:05:46 PM »
Go ahead and move around magnets and coils, you'll get nothing at all.
I take it you have never done any experiments of your own. Motion of magnets near a conductor induces and EMF in the conductor. This is a well established fact.

YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE 450 MV found by the British Secret Service report.
You dismissing the explanation because you don't like it doesn't mean I haven't.

The mechanical energy of moving the components has nothing to do with the 450 mv found in the experiment.
Prove it.

The Tesla bifilar coil defies everything you wrote.
And by bringing it up again, I guess that means I win. I would say its been a pleasure defeating you yet again, but it really isn't. You don't present any intellectual challenge at all.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2018, 03:08:34 PM »
The Tesla bifilar coil defies everything you wrote.



Tesla was a pioneer in the use of the double torsion concept in theory of electromagnetism.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-512340-coil-electro-magnets
"The new idea of this patent seems to be that inductors have self-capacitance. Unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. Tesla intended (and stated) these coils will cancel the self-induction, which in common electrical science means the inductive impedance is canceled by capacitive inductance hence it is a self resonant device (it has its own resonant frequency)."

Nikola Tesla Bifilar Coil
  • A standard solenoidal-wound coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts across it will have a difference of 0.1 volt between turns.
  • A BIFILAR-wound coil of the same number of turns will have a potential of 50 volts between turns.
Where does Nikola Tesla (that great supporter of the heliocentric Globe) ever mention "the double torsion concept in theory of electromagnetism"?
All he is referring to is bifilar winding, which increases the self-capacitance thus removing the need for external expensive high voltage capacitors.

Quote from: sandokhan
Because the stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages,
the energy in the BIFILAR Coil will be 50 squared / .1 squared  =  2500 / .01   =   250,000  times greater than the standard coil."
Incorrect! The "stored energy" is not a simple function of the "potential . . . . between turns".

But when dealing with a very high voltage that shunt capacitor would need a very high voltage rating.
Using the self-capacitance of the winding, however, avoids that but at the expense of requiring a much greater turn-turn voltage rating of the insulated wire used.

Quote from: sandokhan
http://aetherwizard.com/tesla/bifilar_electromagnet.htm

Two Electromagnets
I'd need a lot more evidence to be convinced of that one. Someone simply writing it on the internet means very little.
  • The nails are not identical and
  • there is no mention of the current in the coils being measured.
As I reminded you before:
“Don't believe everything you read in the Internet” - Sir Isaac Newton

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6747
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2018, 03:15:31 PM »
I take it you have never done any experiments of your own. Motion of magnets near a conductor induces and EMF in the conductor. This is a well established fact.

You still don't get it.

The British Secret Service had at the time in its employment the very best scientists in the country.

They would have dismissed Coler's device in no time at all, had your silly explanation been true.

But they did not.

Nobody could explain the 450 mv voltage.

Neither can you.

You are going to have to find another explanation.

Pay attention:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080218060731/http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/colerb~1.htm

IV. Conclusions ~
1. It was judged that Coler was an honest experimenter and not a fraud, and due respect must be paid to the judgment of Frohlich in the matter as deduced from his report to Seysen.

2. The result obtained was genuine in so far as could be tested with the facilities available, but no attempt has yet been made to find an explanation for the phenomenon.

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged electrical energy may be derived without a chemical or mechanical source of power.

The apparatus would appear to be too crude to act as a receiver of broadcast energy, or to operate by induction from the mains (the nearest cable being at least 6 feet away), and the result for the moment must be regarded as inexplicable.

And by bringing it up again,

Of course.

The very same situation.

A much larger output than the input.

I have the videos to prove it.

You are really afraid of this one, since it shows just how wrong you are.

INPUT: 980 W

OUTPUT: 2825 W

You cannot explain it, can you?

The very same situation.

The Tesla bifilar coil defies everything you wrote.



Tesla was a pioneer in the use of the double torsion concept in theory of electromagnetism.

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-512340-coil-electro-magnets

"The new idea of this patent seems to be that inductors have self-capacitance. Unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. Tesla intended (and stated) these coils will cancel the self-induction, which in common electrical science means the inductive impedance is canceled by capacitive inductance hence it is a self resonant device (it has its own resonant frequency)."



"A standard solenoidal-wound coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts across it
will have a difference of 0.1 volt between turns.

• A BIFILAR-wound coil of the same number of turns will have a potential of 50 volts between turns.

Because the stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages,
the energy in the BIFILAR Coil will be 50 squared / .1 squared  =  2500 / .01   =   250,000  times greater than the standard coil."

http://aetherwizard.com/tesla/bifilar_electromagnet.htm


Tesla bifilar coil experiments done by JNaudin Labs

http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils




Test #1



Test #2



Test #3







JPL/CalTech have copied Tesla's design:

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2311.html
« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 03:25:31 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2018, 03:39:08 PM »
They would have dismissed Coler's device in no time at all, had your silly explanation been true.
But they did not.
Not necessarily. They would need to investigate it more to determine if it is true. But at no point did they rule it out.
The only reason they had any interest in it is because the Germans did as well.

"Since an official interest was taken in
his inventions by the German Admiralty it was felt that investigation was warranted,
although normally it would be considered that such a claim could only be fraudulent"

Neither can you.
Except I did. I provided a possible source for the potential. Unless you can show it isn't the case, you have no basis for a free energy device.

2. The result obtained was genuine in so far as could be tested with the facilities available, but no attempt has yet been made to find an explanation for the phenomenon.
Notice how they don't say it can't be explained, just that no attempt has been made to find an explanation.
Big difference.

And by bringing it up again,
Of course.
The very same situation.
Yes, the very same situation where you are unable to defend your initial claims and thus need to run away and focus on other claims.

This means you lose.

If you want to discuss it admit your prior attempts at justifying free energy devices are false, then we move on.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2018, 09:23:07 PM »
can you state what "the law of conservation of the potential" is? I haven't heard of this one! Did you just make it up? Similarly, "the law of conservation of the vector field."

Do your homework (don't worry I have already done it for you):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the longitudinal waves (potential), which generate the vector field.

Aharonov and Bohm proved experimentally the existence of the potential: the modification of the wavefunction of an electron in the ABSENCE of a vector field.

Can you understand this much?

The problem is that if any energy leaks away (like if you can hear it), it's not included in the feedback, and not enough energy remains to keep the motion going perpetually.

The leakage is nothing compared to the ADDITIONAL energy generated by the cavity resonator.
A cavity resonator can not generate extra energy.
Just as a tuned circuit can magnify either voltage or current (at the expense of the other) a cavity resonator can magnify fields.
Still stick to your Sandokhanian Physics if it keeps you happy.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is a device using a tuning fork, a cavity resonator, which did function perfectly:

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/sitemap.html


;D And because you saw it on the internet you believe it ;D?
Quote from: sandokhan
Prove it.

I just did: read my previous message again.
And you have proven nothing! Just posting a few photos proves nothing.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6747
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2018, 10:29:46 PM »
Not necessarily. They would need to investigate it more to determine if it is true. But at no point did they rule it out.

But they did rule it out, which means you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

IV. Conclusions ~
1. It was judged that Coler was an honest experimenter and not a fraud, and due respect must be paid to the judgment of Frohlich in the matter as deduced from his report to Seysen.

2. The result obtained was genuine in so far as could be tested with the facilities available, but no attempt has yet been made to find an explanation for the phenomenon.

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged electrical energy may be derived without a chemical or mechanical source of power.

The apparatus would appear to be too crude to act as a receiver of broadcast energy, or to operate by induction from the mains (the nearest cable being at least 6 feet away), and the result for the moment must be regarded as inexplicable.

Except I did.

Your hare brained idea was debunked in minutes.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE 450 MV IN HANS COLER'S DEVICE.


A completely similar situation: your failure to explain it means you accept defeat.

The Tesla bifilar coil defies everything you wrote.



Tesla was a pioneer in the use of the double torsion concept in theory of electromagnetism.

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-512340-coil-electro-magnets

"The new idea of this patent seems to be that inductors have self-capacitance. Unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. Tesla intended (and stated) these coils will cancel the self-induction, which in common electrical science means the inductive impedance is canceled by capacitive inductance hence it is a self resonant device (it has its own resonant frequency)."



"A standard solenoidal-wound coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts across it
will have a difference of 0.1 volt between turns.

• A BIFILAR-wound coil of the same number of turns will have a potential of 50 volts between turns.

Because the stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages,
the energy in the BIFILAR Coil will be 50 squared / .1 squared  =  2500 / .01   =   250,000  times greater than the standard coil."

http://aetherwizard.com/tesla/bifilar_electromagnet.htm


Tesla bifilar coil experiments done by JNaudin Labs

http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils




Test #1



Test #2



Test #3







JPL/CalTech have copied Tesla's design:

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2311.html


INPUT: 980 W

OUTPUT: 2825 W




A cavity resonator can not generate extra energy.

But it can.

Whittaker proved that it can, Aharonov and Bohm proved again that it can.

Take a look at the ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT generated by the sound:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/01/scitech/main20076209.shtml

Denis Terwagne of the University of Liège in Belgium and John Bush, a mathematician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with quite an interesting finding concerning a ceremonial instrument used by generations of Tibetans.

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2018, 11:44:36 PM »
But they did rule it out, which means you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
No they didn't. You stated yourself, no attempt to explain it has been made.
That doesn't mean they have ruled it out. It means they have made no attempt.
In order to rule it out they would need to have made an attempt to explained it, and failed.

So stop lying.

Your hare brained idea was debunked in minutes.
Spouting garbage and dismissing an explanation is not debunking it. I have provided a possible explanation for the origin of the 450 mV detected.
You have provided no reason as to why that explanation is in error.

Until you have provided a justification for why my explanation is wrong, you have no free energy device.

A completely similar situation: your failure to explain it means you accept defeat.
No, my rejection of you trying to change topic to try and escape your failure is your defeat, not mine, because it is a sign that you are running away and can't honestly defend your position.

The Tesla bifilar coil defies everything you wrote.
If it does then admit your prior claims are garbage (or at least unsupported) and we can deal with that.
Until then it is irrelevant spam and just you showing that you have been defeated.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6747
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #40 on: November 21, 2018, 12:50:32 AM »
I have provided a possible explanation for the origin of the 450 mV detected.

Your explanation is already flowing down the drain.

jackblack, YOU HAVE MISERABLY FAILED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION FOR THE REGISTERED 450 MV.

No outer source of power whatsoever, verified by the British Secret Service.

Yet, for three hours, they got 450 mv.

That doesn't mean they have ruled it out. It means they have made no attempt.

But they did rule it out.

Please read.

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged electrical energy may be derived without a chemical or mechanical source of power.

The apparatus would appear to be too crude to act as a receiver of broadcast energy, or to operate by induction from the mains (the nearest cable being at least 6 feet away), and the result for the moment must be regarded as inexplicable.

From the very first, they would have verified any MECHANICAL source of power. MI6 would have thrown Hans Coler out of the building, not to mention throwing out his devices right through the nearest window, had they thought something is wrong. But they didn't. They came to Coler, not the other way around.

Unless you can provide an explanation, you are going to have to accept that the 450 mv were generated by the ether potential.

Explain or shut up.

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils




Test #1



Test #2



Test #3







JPL/CalTech have copied Tesla's design:

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2311.html


INPUT: 980 W

OUTPUT: 2825 W

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2018, 12:58:43 AM »
Not necessarily. They would need to investigate it more to determine if it is true. But at no point did they rule it out.

But they did rule it out, which means you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
IV. Conclusions ~
1. It was judged that Coler was an honest experimenter and not a fraud, and due respect must be paid to the judgment of Frohlich in the matter as deduced from his report to Seysen.

2. The result obtained was genuine in so far as could be tested with the facilities available, but no attempt has yet been made to find an explanation for the phenomenon.

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged electrical energy may be derived without a chemical or mechanical source of power.
Sure, "alleged electrical energy may be derived". 
Quote from: sandokhan

The apparatus would appear to be too crude to act as a receiver of broadcast energy, or to operate by induction from the mains (the nearest cable being at least 6 feet away), and the result for the moment must be regarded as inexplicable.

Except I did.

Your hare brained idea was debunked in minutes.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE 450 MV IN HANS COLER'S DEVICE.
I fail to see why anyone has explain anything. If there was anything commercial in it we would have seen someone exploit it.
If you think it's "the Illuminati Conspiracy" hiding "The Truth" put your money where your mouth is and do it yourself.

Quote from: sandokhan
A completely similar situation: your failure to explain it means you accept defeat.

The Tesla bifilar coil defies everything you wrote.
No it doesn't! It's once again a case of: If there was anything commercial in it we would have seen someone exploit it.
If you think it's "the Illuminati Conspiracy" hiding "The Truth" put your money where your mouth is and do it yourself.

Surely we've seen those often enough!

Quote from: sandokhan
Tesla bifilar coil experiments done by JNaudin Labs

http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

Comparison of Tesla Bifilar and Pancake Coils


There's no "magic" in the bifilar coils. It just increases the self capacitance and so reduces the self-resonant frequency.

Quote from: sandokhan
Test #1
          Test #2
          Test #3
         
INPUT: 980 W; OUTPUT: 2825 W
It would take a lot more than those to convince me that it's an over-unity system though I'm not suggesting that the experiments were rigged.

Trying the next step and power the device from its own output would make it more impressive.
I've seen so many scams based on similar ideas that I have to ask "If it is genuine why isn't the developer another Elon Musk?".

Quote from: sandokhan
JPL/CalTech have copied Tesla's design:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2311.html
Really? That's just an ingenious pumped amplifier. There's no connection with any free energy generation.
Quote
This new type of amplifier boosts electrical signals and can be used for everything from studying stars, galaxies and black holes to exploring the quantum world and developing quantum computers. An amplifier is a device that increases the strength of a weak signal.

One of the key features of the new amplifier is that it incorporates superconductors-materials that allow an electric current to flow with zero resistance when lowered to certain temperatures. For their amplifier, the researchers are using titanium nitride and niobium titanium nitride, which have just the right properties to allow the pump signal to amplify the weak signal.

Quote from: sandokhan
[A cavity resonator can not generate extra energy.

But it can.
Whittaker proved that it can, Aharonov and Bohm proved again that it can.
Please show exactly where Whittaker and Aharonov and Bohm proved a cavity resonator can generate extra energy

Quote from: sandokhan
Take a look at the ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT generated by the sound:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/01/scitech/main20076209.shtml
But that's just an effect of standing waves in air. There's no "ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT".

Quote from: sandokhan
Denis Terwagne of the University of Liège in Belgium and John Bush, a mathematician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with quite an interesting finding concerning a ceremonial instrument used by generations of Tibetans.

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2018, 01:14:01 AM »
Your explanation is already flowing down the drain.
Prove it.
Your word means nothing.
You need to explain why my explanation is wrong. You don't just get to dismiss it.

I have provided an explanation. Until you refute it you have no basis for your claim of free energy.

Until you deal with this or admit that your claim is baseless, bringing up Tesla is just a sign of your own failure.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6747
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2018, 01:42:44 AM »
Prove it.

Here are the findings of the British Secret Service regarding Hans Coler's device.

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged electrical energy may be derived without a chemical or mechanical source of power.

The apparatus would appear to be too crude to act as a receiver of broadcast energy, or to operate by induction from the mains (the nearest cable being at least 6 feet away), and the result for the moment must be regarded as inexplicable.

IV. Conclusions ~
1. It was judged that Coler was an honest experimenter and not a fraud, and due respect must be paid to the judgment of Frohlich in the matter as deduced from his report to Seysen.

2. The result obtained was genuine in so far as could be tested with the facilities available, but no attempt has yet been made to find an explanation for the phenomenon.


YOU HAVE FAILED AGAIN TO EXPLAIN THE REGISTERED 450 MV IN THE DEVICE.

Accordingly Coler was visited and interrogated. He proved to be cooperative and willing to disclose all details of his devices, and consented to build up and put into operation a small model of the so-called "Magnetstromapparat" [Magnet Power Apparatus] using material supplied to him by us, and working only in our presence. With this device, consisting only of permanent magnets, copper coils, and condensers in a static arrangement he showed that he could obtain a tension of 450 millivolts for a period of some hours; and in a repetition of the experiment the next day 60 millivolts was recorded for a short period. The apparatus has been brought back and is now being further investigated.


The 450 mv could only have been generated by the potential (ether waves).

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2018, 02:10:56 AM »
Here are the findings of the British Secret Service regarding Hans Coler's device.
We have already been over that.
Again, here is the important part:

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged
Not proven, ALLEGED!!! Do you understand that?
That means Coler asserts that it does that.
That doesn't mean it actually does, that, just that he asserts it does.

The fact that he needs to move it indicates quite strongly that it does require mechanical power.

YOU HAVE FAILED AGAIN TO EXPLAIN THE REGISTERED 450 MV IN THE DEVICE.
Repeating the same lie wont make it true.
I have provided an explanation and you are yet to demonstrate any problem with it.

The 450 mv could only have been generated by the potential (ether waves).
I see no reason as to why it couldn't have been generated by the mechanical energy input.
Can you provide a justification for why it couldn't?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6747
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2018, 02:27:11 AM »
Any allegation made by Coler would have been met with the harshest disdain possible by the MI6.

They VERIFIED his claims to be true.

I see no reason as to why it couldn't have been generated by the mechanical energy input.

They explicitly remarked that Coler's claims (no chemical/mechanical devices) were already VERIFIED.

The mechanical generation of the energy falls by the wayside.

They even verified that there was no outer radio source.

They took into account each and every possible explanation.

Remember, this is the MI6 one is dealing with: they knew exactly what they were doing.

And yet, they found the generation of 450 mv for three hours to be INEXPLICABLE.

The only possible source for the 450 mv is the potential (ether waves).

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2018, 02:53:53 AM »
Prove it.
. . . . . . .
The 450 mv could only have been generated by the potential (ether waves).
450 mv ;D big deal! But I repeat. If there was anything in it would already been commercialised.
If you think someone "paid someone off" get off your butt and build one yourself!

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2018, 02:56:14 AM »
Any allegation made by Coler would have been met with the harshest disdain possible by the MI6.
That is correct. The only reason his claims were given any interest at all is because the Germans were interested.

They VERIFIED his claims to be true.
Stop lying. They did no such thing.

They took into account each and every possible explanation.
Then why did they state that no attempt had been made to explain it?

Remember, this is the MI6 one is dealing with
No it isn't.
According to the report, the personnelle team consisted of:
"R. Hurst, Ministry of Supply Captain R.Sandberg, Norwegian Army"

And yet, they found the generation of 450 mv for three hours to be INEXPLICABLE.
No, they didn't bother attempting to explain it and thus regarded it FOR THE MOMENT as inexplicable.

Now again, why is my explanation wrong? Why couldn't it be the mechanical energy input which resulted in a potential of 450 mV?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6747
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2018, 05:25:10 AM »
Your explanation is puerile.

A continuous voltage of 450 mv was recorded for three hours. No ups and downs. Your hare brained idea, that the examiners would move the magnets back and forth for three hours has not scientific merit.

In fact, both chemical and mechanical causes were eliminated from the start.

Here are the findings of the British Secret Service regarding Hans Coler's device.

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged electrical energy may be derived without a chemical or mechanical source of power.

The apparatus would appear to be too crude to act as a receiver of broadcast energy, or to operate by induction from the mains (the nearest cable being at least 6 feet away), and the result for the moment must be regarded as inexplicable.

IV. Conclusions ~
1. It was judged that Coler was an honest experimenter and not a fraud, and due respect must be paid to the judgment of Frohlich in the matter as deduced from his report to Seysen.

2. The result obtained was genuine in so far as could be tested with the facilities available, but no attempt has yet been made to find an explanation for the phenomenon.


YOU HAVE FAILED AGAIN TO EXPLAIN THE REGISTERED 450 MV IN THE DEVICE.

Accordingly Coler was visited and interrogated. He proved to be cooperative and willing to disclose all details of his devices, and consented to build up and put into operation a small model of the so-called "Magnetstromapparat" [Magnet Power Apparatus] using material supplied to him by us, and working only in our presence. With this device, consisting only of permanent magnets, copper coils, and condensers in a static arrangement he showed that he could obtain a tension of 450 millivolts for a period of some hours; and in a repetition of the experiment the next day 60 millivolts was recorded for a short period. The apparatus has been brought back and is now being further investigated.


The 450 mv could only have been generated by the potential (ether waves).


https://web.archive.org/web/20080218060731/http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/colerb~1.htm

BRITISH INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE

MI6 was supervising the entire operation, since Coler's device could be put immediately to work for the army.

That is why the report was classified for 16 years.


Here is another work, dealing with extracting energy from the potential, the Bohren effect.



Craig F. Bohren, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University. He is an author of about 100 articles mostly on atmospheric optics, radiative transfer, and light scattering.

"How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?", Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327

Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.

http://www.cheniere.org/references/bohren/index.htm

See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, (Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327 which replicated the Bohren experiment independently and validated its results (page 5 from the link).

"C.F. Bohren proved that a resonant particle collects and emits up to 18 times as much energy as is input to it by conventional accounting."


It was published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world.




(John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992)

"A drawing of the huge Poynting energy flow filling all space around the conductors, with almost all of it not intercepted.

From the beginning, Poynting only considered that component of the energy flow that actually enters the circuit. He considered only the "boundary layer" right on the conductor surfaces, so to speak. Heaviside considered that component that enters the circuit, and also uncovered and recognized the gigantic component in the surrounding space that does not enter the circuit but misses it entirely.

Heaviside had absolutely no explanation for the enormous and startling magnitude of this energy flow that "misses the surface charges of the conductors and is wasted". One can see an elementary illustration of the "point intensity" of this Poynting diverged energy flow component.

Most of that available energy flow is not intercepted and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it. The remaining huge component discovered by Heaviside is not shown on Kraus's diagram.

Each of Kraus' contours of energy flow in space, around those power line conductors, shows only that part of the energy flow in space that is being drawn into the circuit. It does not show the remaining huge energy flow that (i) is not intercepted, (ii) does not enter the circuit, and (iii) is wasted. Presently no texts illustrate this Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component.


In the 1880s, Poynting and Heaviside independently (and rather simultaneously) discovered EM energy flow through space.

J. H. Poynting, "On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field."
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 175, 1884, p. 343-361

O. Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886, and 1887

With respect to circuits, from the beginning Poynting assumed only that small amount of
EM energy flow that enters the circuit. Here are Poynting's {28} own words:

“This paper describes a hypothesis as to the connexion between current in
conductors and the transfer of electric and magnetic inductions in the
surrounding field. The hypothesis is suggested by the mode of transfer of
energy in the electromagnetic field, resulting from Maxwell’s equations
investigated in a former paper (“Phil. Trans.,” vol. 175, pp. 343-361,
1884). It was there shown that according to Maxwell’s electromagnetic
theory the energy which is dissipated in the circuit is transferred through
the medium, always moving perpendicularly to the plane containing the
lines of electric and magnetic intensity, and that it comes into the
conductor from the surrounding insulator, not flowing along the wire.”


J. H. Poynting, “On the connexion between electric current and the electric and magnetic inductions in the surrounding field,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 38, 1984-85, p. 168

As can be seen, Poynting considered only the energy flow actually entering the wire, and
subsequently being dissipated in the circuit. Poynting also got the direction of the flow
wrong, later to be corrected. Hence Poynting never considered the huge EM energy flow component around the circuit that is not diverged, misses the circuit entirely, does not contribute to the energy dissipated by the circuit.

Heaviside's theory was an extension of what Poynting had considered, and he also
corrected Poynting as to the direction of flow. Heaviside was fully aware of the enormity
of the "dark energy" flow missed by Poynting, but had absolutely no explanation as to
where such a startlingly large EM energy flow—pouring from the terminals of every
dipole, generator, or battery—could possibly be coming from. Consequently he was very
cautious in referring to it, usually doing so only obliquely in terms of the angles and
components. In Heaviside's own words:

“It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very
nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire… . Prof.
Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the
transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure
from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise
from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the
electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines
of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from
perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them
as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized
the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the
convergence of energy into the wire.”


O. Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94

As can be seen, Heaviside was fully aware that the energy flow diverged into the wire
was only a minuscule fraction of the total. And he was fully aware that the remaining
component was so huge that the energy flow vector remaining—after the divergence of
the Poynting component into the circuit—was still almost parallel to the conductors.
However, he had no explanation at all of where such an enormous and baffling energy
flow could possibly originate.

Had Heaviside strongly stated the enormity of the nondiverged component of the energy
flow, he would have been viciously attacked and scientifically discredited as a perpetual
motion advocate. So his words were measured and cautious, but there is no doubt that he
recognized the enormity of the nondiverged EM energy flow component.

Lorentz Disposed of the Problem Rather than Solving It

Lorentz entered the EM energy flow scene to face the terrible problem so quietly raised
by Heaviside. Lorentz understood the presence of the Poynting component, and also of the Heaviside component, but could find no explanation for the startling, enormous magnitude of the EM energy pouring out of the terminals of the power source (pouring from the source dipole) if the Heaviside component was accounted. Had he developed and retained this enormous dark energy flow component, even the Lorentz would have been castigated as a perpetual motion advocate.

Unable to solve the dark energy flow problem by any rational means, Lorentz found a
clever way to avoid it. He reasoned that the nondiverged Heaviside component was
"physically insignificant" (his term) because it did not even enter the circuit. Since it did
nothing, he reasoned that it could just be discarded.

So Lorentz simply integrated the entire energy flow vector (the vector representing
the sum of both the Heaviside nondiverged component and the Poynting diverged
component) around an assumed closed surface enclosing any volume of interest. A priori
this mathematical procedure discards the dark Heaviside energy flow component because
of its nondivergence. It retains only the intercepted Poynting diverged component that
enters the circuit.

A century later, electrodynamicists are still happily avoiding the dark energy flow
problem by continuing to use the Lorentz integration procedure to dispose of all but
the Poynting component that enters the circuit and is then dissipated by the circuit. As a
result, the "Poynting energy flow" has come to be loosely regarded as "the" entire EM
energy flow, though electrodynamicists find it necessary to give stringent warnings about
it. E.g., Panofsky and Phillips state it this way:

"…only the entire surface integral of N [their notation for the Poynting
vector] contributes to the energy balance. Paradoxical results may be
obtained if one tries to identify the Poynting vector with the energy flow
per unit area at any point."

W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1962, 2nd edition, p. 181

Most electrodynamicists note the freedom to add a vector—few call it an energy flow
vector, though that is the type of vector being discussed, and one must add apples to
apples—which has zero divergence. Jones states:

"It is possible to introduce the Poynting vector S, defined by S = E×H,
and regard it as the intensity of energy flow at a point. This procedure is
open to criticism since we could add to S any vector whose divergence is
zero without affecting [the basic integration procedure's result]."

D. S. Jones, The Theory of Electromagnetism, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964, p. 52

Jackson says it even more plainly, and also uses Lorentz's "no physical significance" argument for disposing of any energy flow vector with a zero divergence.

Quoting:

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector
field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no
physical consequences."

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 237

Needless to say, any energy flow vector which is the curl of a vector field will have zero
divergence, by elementary vector algebra. In short, to be pertinent at all, it must be an
energy flow vector (since energy flow is what S = E×H is all about. Since the curl of any vector has no divergence a priori, then any energy flow vector that is a curl of a vector field will be part of the Heaviside dark energy flow component, rather than part of the Poynting energy flow component. It will also be discarded by Lorentz's closed surface
integration.

Jackson errs in assuming such a divergence free vector (energy flow) can have no
physical consequences. That is true so long as one does not intercept and diverge—and
utilize—some of the otherwise nondiverged energy flow. If one inserts intercepting
charges into that nondiverged energy flow component, the charges will immediately
diverge some of the formerly nondiverged energy flow around them and hence "collect
additional energy". "



[The Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small diverged component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra huge Heaviside curled energy transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is not used.]

"The total energy flow in space surrounding the conductors has two components as follows:

1) A tiny Poynting component of the energy flow directly along the surface of the
conductors strikes the surface charges and is diverged (deviated) into the conductors to power the circuit.

2) The huge nondiverted Heaviside component filling all space around the circuit, misses the circuit entirely.

The Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component was arbitrarily discarded by H.A. Lorentz, who integrated the energy flow vector itself around a closed surface enclosing any volumetric element of interest. This discards any nondiverted (nondiverged) energy flow components, regardless of how large, and retains only the diverted (diverged) component, regardless of how small.

Effectively Lorentz arbitrarily changed the energy flow vector into its diverted flow component vector—a fundamental non sequitur. In one stroke he discarded the bothersome Heaviside component, reasoning that it was "physically insignificant" because—in single pass circuits—it does not enter the circuit and power it.

This is rather like arguing that all the wind on the ocean that does not strike the sails of a
single sailboat, is "physically insignificant." A moment's reflection shows that the "insignificant" remaining wind can power a large number of additional sailing vessels. A very large amount of energy can be extracted and used to do work, if that "physically insignificant" wind is intercepted by additional sails.

Suppose Lorentz had not arbitrarily discarded the huge Heaviside energy flow component
surrounding the circuit and not contributing to its power. In that case, electrodynamicists in the 1880s would have been confronted with the dilemma of explaining where such an enormous flow of energy—pouring forth out of the terminals of every generator and battery—could possibly have come from.

To avoid strong attack and suppression from the scientific community on grounds of
advocating perpetual motion and violation of energy conservation, in the 1880s there was no other choice but to discard the Heaviside component on some pretext. So Lorentz simply discarded the vexing component. He could not solve the problem so he got rid of it.

Lorentz further reduced the already seriously reduced symmetrized Heaviside equations, in order to specifically eliminate the newly discovered giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow that – unknown to our present electrical engineers – accompanies every Poynting energy flow component (which is diverged into the circuit to power it), but is itself (the curled component) not diverged and thus is just wasted because it normally does not interact.

Lorentz altered the actually-used energy flow vector by throwing away that giant Heaviside component quite arbitrarily. Thus the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow component is no longer accounted or even recognized in electrical engineering, but it still physically accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow component in every EM system or circuit.


Heaviside and Poynting independently discovered EM energy flow theory.  Poynting conceived only that small component of the energy flow which enters the conductors.  On the other hand, Heaviside recognized that all space around the circuit's conductors was filled with EM energy flow.  A small "boundary layer sheath" component of this energy flowing outside the circuit moves right along the surface of the wires, where it strikes the surface charges and is diverged into the circuit.  This small Poynting energy flow component enters the circuit and provides the energy subsequently dissipated in the circuit's loads and losses.

However, the "sheath layer" Poynting component is only a tiny fraction of the truly enormous energy flow pouring out of the generator or battery terminals and flowing through surrounding space, with most of it missing the circuit entirely.

Lorentz considered this huge nondiverged Heaviside flow component "physically insignificant" (his term) and logically felt free to neglect it because it did not enter the circuit and did not contribute to powering the loads and losses.  However, in aether theory  any change in spatial energy density represents a curvature of the aether (potentials/Whittaker longitudinal waves), hence produces gravitational effects.

Bohren's experiment collects 18 times more energy from the usually nondiverged Heaviside component, just by resonating the charge and thereby sweeping out a greater geometrical reaction cross section than the static charge that is used to calculate the Poynting flow component.  It follows that "the" field and "the" potential input to the intercepting charge have far more energy "in the vicinity of" an interacting point static charge and of a unit dipole than what is accounted for in the conventional EM model where the magnitudes of the fields and potentials are erroneously taken as being the magnitudes of the energy diverted from them by a unit point static charge.  This enormous extra energy, however, does not participate in the interaction and is the "dark energy" component recognized by Heaviside and then erroneously discarded by Lorentz."


" Heaviside himself recognized the gravitational implications of his extra component of energy flow, which is in closed circular loops. Beneath the floorboards of his little garret apartment, years after his death, handwritten papers were found where Heaviside used this component for a unified EM approach to gravitation.

See E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” Electrical Review,
211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45.

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2018, 12:46:13 PM »
Your explanation is puerile.
You are yet to provide any problem with it.

A continuous voltage of 450 mv was recorded for three hours. No ups and downs. Your hare brained idea, that the examiners would move the magnets back and forth for three hours has not scientific merit.
Good job showing that you still don't understand what potential is.
450 mV is an electric potential. It is not a measure of energy. That can hypothetically be maintained indefinitely.
This potential only appeared after the input of mechanical energy. It started out small and slowly grew to be a larger potential, as more mechanical energy was put in.

In fact, both chemical and mechanical causes were eliminated from the start.
No they were not. Again, no attempt was made to explain it. The only thing they seem to have ruled out is induction from nearby power cables.

Here are the findings of the British Secret Service regarding Hans Coler's device.
Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged[snip]
THAT IS NOT A FINDING! Do you understand that?
The inventor alleging something is not any significant finding about the device. It is a finding about the claims of the inventor.

All it is is an allegation, there is no evidence of it.

And there you go with more irrelevant garbage showing you cannot honestly defend your position.

So I ask again, why can't the documented input of mechanical energy be responsible for the 450 mV potential that was recorded?

Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2018, 01:29:56 PM »
I was about to conclude that you had given up on your claims about the electrically driven tuning fork could be harnessed to make a perpetual motion machine, when I happened to notice rab's reply to this, which was just the barest whiff of the actual topic you buried in a ridiculous amount of completely unrelated material:

A cavity resonator can not generate extra energy.

But it can.

Whittaker proved that it can, Aharonov and Bohm proved again that it can.

Citation needed.

So far all you continue to do is make unfounded claims and think every should just accept them because you said them.

Did you ever present a coherent (and, preferably, concise) statement of "the law of conservation of the vector field" or "the law of conservation of the potential"? If those got lost in all that other stuff, where are they?

Quote
Take a look at the ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT generated by the sound:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/01/scitech/main20076209.shtml

Denis Terwagne of the University of Liège in Belgium and John Bush, a mathematician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with quite an interesting finding concerning a ceremonial instrument used by generations of Tibetans.

You can do that with water (or coffee) in a styrofoam coffee cup, too. Standing waves on the liquid's surface can produce effects that are sometimes cool, but not all that mysterious, certainly not "antigravity", and the effects stop when you stop introducing mechanical energy into the system, so it's not perpetual motion, either. Although it involves resonance, it doesn't belong in this discussion, which is about the electrically driven tuning fork as a perpetual motion machine.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Perpetual motion machines - the electrically driven tuning fork
« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2018, 02:21:17 PM »
I was about to conclude that you had given up on your claims about the electrically driven tuning fork could be harnessed to make a perpetual motion machine, when I happened to notice rab's reply to this, which was just the barest whiff of the actual topic you buried in a ridiculous amount of completely unrelated material:


Take a look at the ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT generated by the sound:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/01/scitech/main20076209.shtml

Denis Terwagne of the University of Liège in Belgium and John Bush, a mathematician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with quite an interesting finding concerning a ceremonial instrument used by generations of Tibetans.

You can do that with water (or coffee) in a styrofoam coffee cup, too. Standing waves on the liquid's surface can produce effects that are sometimes cool, but not all that mysterious, certainly not "antigravity", and the effects stop when you stop introducing mechanical energy into the system, so it's not perpetual motion, either. Although it involves resonance, it doesn't belong in this discussion, which is about the electrically driven tuning fork as a perpetual motion machine.
But Snadokhan thinks that resonance in any form is magic.
He obviously hasn't the slightest understanding of tuned electrical circuits (as in Tesla's bifilar coils), electromagnetic or acoustic fields (resonating cavities) or even in liquids or gasses in containers (ceremonial instrument used by generations of Tibetans).

He just proves the truth of  third of Arthur C Clarke's  famous three laws.
Quote
  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  • The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  • Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.