Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity

[Khwartz]

Hi Khwartz,
  I thought that you weren't going to give me credit for having my own ideas, as you just dismissed my first idea...

What do you mean by "dismissed"? If it is to tell you that your idea of doing it in first step was not in agreement with what far more experienced people than me say, indeed. If means to discourage you to follow your own idea, read back better because I have even taken time to advise you how to do with a easy way BlueDragon had teached just before (wiring 2 wires same times, etc., I have just adapted the advise to your case where the space between the main wire would not be necessarily same thickness); don't you remember that?

I have no time to waste. I do that to help something I think of VERY main importance (avoiding wars for energy control, drinking water for the whole planet, anything manufactured or transported cleaner and cheaper so that anybody could live in abundance and not in the lacking feeling), while I would be already supposed to have no time for.

So, I ask again my question: do  you ask for any help, advise, specific translation to clear an automatic translation of any kind? or do you prefer to just refer to our guys in the community of Conspirovniscience? (And don't see any reproach here because there not any; I just want to know, to not having the feeling I was spending my time for nothing while trying to help).

Warning: I insist on the fact that IF YOU ACCEPT MY ADVISES, THOSE COULD BE WITH OR AGAINST YOUR OWN IDEAS...

I spent some time thinking about how the coil may act as an antenna. I thought that it might be important. I did the calculations, and i shared my idea in good faith, hoping that you would discuss it with me. But instead you said:

And you just repeated the normal build instructions... So it seemed to me that either you a) missed the point what i was saying, or b) you thought my idea was stupid. I was disappointed by your response...

BlueDragon gave you the same exact advise. It wasn't to say it was not "a good idea" to try in absolute but just to advise you to follow a logical and recognised methodology in your progression to master this device.

Could be I should not have been so direct and so synthetic in my advise going to the core of the answer. Looks you indeed more appreciated the answers of BlueDragon and Pascuser, while indeed they concluded the same as me. INCLUDING to encourage you to do any way you feel nice to do, except to do it AFTER having mastered the basic experiments, while I have even told you to follow your idea if you wished.

All this is much time and efforts for very few results, imo.

Note - it is *because* i value your opinion, that i was disappointed...

Could be I am not writing enough good English, and I apologise for I still work on it, cause for me there was no "stupidity" at all in your idea, ALL THE CONTRARY!,  only me trying to help but having the feeling of wasting my time a few, while I had well understood your idea (have a look in my thread in cos.com and you will see that I have even worked futher your idea).

I don't know if the length of wire in the coil is important, but I would like to be able to discuss this, and other things with you... I would hope that you might also do a replication, so we can compare notes...

I do think your idea is enough interesting to be tried, but I just don't think that is a good idea for a first step, BlueDragon too, Pascuser too, and many others sure like Hoppy or Woppy, would say the same: we don't try to acheive better than our peers while we have not yet demostrated any mastering of what our peers have done successfully before us..
It is just this. While wanting to change think right at the beginning you just take a VERY VERY BIG risk to get disappointed because you could easily go in too much complexity of too much factors to master in the same time. Learn how to glue bricks in a straight wall, then you will be more easy to test any other shape of walls: round, elliptical, star like, whatever you like,  but it is JUST an advise: in our opinion, you will take less risk to go through disappointment if you chose a gradual path (where ever you want to bring this path). BUT if you have a huge "risky fiber" in you, so go ahead with your idea and any possible disappointment will be nothing for you because it will not stop you and you will take lesson of your experience in any way (... Could be to go back at the first step, who knows!  )

I do value and respect your opinion, and i hope that is mutual. I hope we can work together on this and have some fun, and learn some new things...


Regards, Tim

I would like much.

To answer your question about my replication:

I have no problem to produce the "U" as in addition to be trained in industrie and climatic engineering (with own work in ecological energetic engineering), I am trained plumber and electrician The problem is that I very don't like to make electronics and not skill in any way in pratice.

I have an oscilloscope making frequency generator too but it doesn't go up to 1 MHz.

BTW, could be it is you who could help me in the electronics. I know the very basic of, of course as electrician, but don't ask me to make a transistor working as it should do! 

In addition to this, could be you could help me as I still can't download any spreadsheet, cause still on mobile, could you tell me which longer I should take for the whole bar to have the fundamental Richard's frequency as per calculation under 1 MHz? We have to remember that 3.6 MHz is only for 1 m bar of copper... few meters of copper pipe is not a problem for me, until 10 meters I think I can handle; I could even bind it circular to economise the space (it has been done already, the shape, until now, has not been off any importance, except for practical use and could be to minimise the length of the connection wires).

Any way, I hope some other guys of ou.com, like Hoppy will join us and magpwr could be too, but still not sure.

Best regards,
Khwartz.

[tim123]

So, I ask again my question: do  you ask for any help, advise, specific translation to clear an automatic translation of any kind? or do you prefer to just refer to our guys in the community of Conspirovniscience?

Hi Khwartz,
  Nothing specific today, but tomorrow - who knows... I would just like to be able to chat to you and the other guys - when things come up...

It wasn't to say it was not "a good idea" to try in absolute but just to advise you to follow a logical and recognised methodology in your progression to master this device.
we don't try to acheive better than our peers while we have not yet demostrated any mastering of what our peers have done successfully before us..

I was just discussing what i had in mind. I was not trying to achieve anything - just a better understanding of the device, and what people had already done.

I didn't know when I asked the question, if anyone had thought of it before or not. It might have already been researched, and if not i was just sharing the idea hoping it might help...

for me there was no "stupidity" at all in your idea...
While wanting to change think right at the beginning you just take a VERY VERY BIG risk to get disappointed because you could easily go in too much complexity of too much factors to master in the same time...

Ok, cool. I hear what your saying... No problem.

But, if everyone does exactly the same build, and the same experiments - then they will get the same results, and as i understand it, we're still looking for a missing element...

I will approach this project in my own way - because that's how i understand things. I can't do it anyone else's way...

BTW, could be it is you who could help me in the electronics. I know the very basic of, of course as electrician, but don't ask me to make a transistor working as it should do! 

I'll do my best, but I'm very much still a beginner...

could you tell me which longer I should take for the whole bar to have the fundamental Richard's frequency as per calculation under 1 MHz?

According to the spreadsheet - you have to go over 13m long for a freq of <1MHz...

I think a new signal-generator would be much cheaper than 13m of copper tube...

Regards, Tim

[tim123]

Experiments - Step 1 - Groundwork

1) Test the long coil's natural resonance frequency, empty, and with the various cores.
1a) Setup

  -----------               ----------------
  | Sig-Gen |+++++| Exciter Coil |
  -----------              ----------------
            |                 |   Long Coil  |
            |                 ----------------
            |                  |                |
            ---------------| 50 Ohms |
                   |                            |
                   |               --------------------
                   |               | 2pF Capacitor |
                   |               --------------------
                   |                              |
                Scope Gnd      Scope Probe

- Exciter coil is 5 turns of wire loosely wrapped around long coil
- 2pF capacitor is to decouple the probe's own capacitance from the circuit. It's 2cm of co-ax cable.
- Tested across a 50 Ohm resistor


1b) Results

- Resonant frequency was found by finding the maximum voltage across the resistor.
- Various cores were tested...
- The folded wire is similar to JNL's 'Nextgen' version core.


Test #        Coil Core           Frequency         Voltage (Peak)
--------      ----------                -----------          ----------------
1)           Empty                    4.93 Mhz              65 mV

2)           2 Copper Tubes       5.56 MHz           52 mV
              (No ferrite)

3)           " with ferrite               - same ! -

4)           Single copper tube   5.52 MHz           52 mV

5)           Folded wire             4.35 MHz             61 mV

[Khwartz]

Hi Khwartz,

Hi tim.

Nothing specific today, but tomorrow - who knows... I would just like to be able to chat to you and the other guys - when things come up...

OK, I get.

I was just discussing what i had in mind. I was not trying to achieve anything - just a better understanding of the device, and what people had already done.

I didn't know when I asked the question, if anyone had thought of it before or not. It might have already been researched, and if not i was just sharing the idea hoping it might help...

Ok, cool. I hear what your saying... No problem.

Could be nice but very up to you, tim.

But, if everyone does exactly the same build, and the same experiments - then they will get the same results, and as i understand it, we're still looking for a missing element...

In a way your are true about if everyone does the same. But it not "do all the same all the time", where did you read that, dear tim :/ but to try to acheive first what is INDEED WORKING already, before to do what ever OTHER way.

For missing element, not so much cause all need to be done HAVING ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED. Just the problem is that it was in laboratory and by a electronic engineer having unlimited means in terms of material and finances.

We basically know what to do for the whole overunity COP, and have been obtained occasionally in a few range, but not having the skills and means yet to produce at will what has been done, as the guys report.

They're just looking for the right way to tune and a way to have a very low consumption electronics allowing smoothly the negative power to be collected when it goes toward the initial power supply.

What ever idea you may have are welcomed.

I have answered you the way I have because it was about to replicate the device and for your first step. I didn't see anywhere it was just "questions in the air just to know", or you change your mind since.

Once again: FEEL FREE TO DO WHAT EVER WAY YOU WANT.

If the reasons we advise you to replicate first the basics to master them to obtain the lighting of a light bulb and them recording the overunity of the bar, are not clear enough for you, dear tim, I am sorry, I have done all what I can do about and now it is up to you.

Now, if you want we discuss this device and is replication, could be it would be better if you could specify clearly if your question is for general understanding, checking, proposition of ideas or for direct current replication.

I will approach this project in my own way - because that's how i understand things. I can't do it anyone else's way...

OK, it is your very right, and I can understand.

I'll do my best, but I'm very much still a beginner...

So do I in a way, even if I know this device since a while and have had accessed to the knowledge about since longer and easer than you probably.

I thought my job was mainly to know all about so that I could answer the questions for non French speakers here, and most of all to promote it so skills and means could add to break the last steps for the full mastering.

I remember you that I have started this in the context that no one from France wanted no more to care to make this device and the work of Richard known internationally because of the first unsuccessful attempt by Pascuser when he opened this thread.

Now, Pascuser and the others who can communicate in English too are OK to help back and answer to the questions you may ask. In a way, I am no more useful except to publish the results from cos.com. But I will continue to go through the most advanced thread, the one of Colas07, from its beginning so I could be always updated and full aware of state of the art the the experiments and updated regards to the results, successes, failures, actions of success and unsuccessul actions, so I could relevantly advise.

Questions could be asked directly to others and I could check to indicate if the replications are or not in agreement with what we already know. But I insist: saying it is not in agreement doesn't mean you can't do it, it is just that one could be aware of one choice and fully evaluate ones decision.

Anyway, still need to clarify a point with you: if I see something which looks to me against the lessons already taken from the past, lessons which have made the device working, do you want I indicate you it? Once again, feel free to care or not, but at least knowing the lessons of the past (successful ones) could help you in case of disappointment in your tries.

According to the spreadsheet - you have to go over 13m long for a freq of <1MHz...

Thanks a lot for the datum.

I think a new signal-generator would be much cheaper than 13m of copper tube...

~ 48 € for the pipe and 60 € for the copper wire.

But what would worried me by doing so would be to change much the conditions of what has worked already.

With this device it is VERY DIFFERENT than all the others in ou.com which have not been proved as clear and full documented and already replicated by many, like the "RAG" (Richard's AutoGenerator) is; here we have a device who already produces systematically an overunity, that's why it is less, i.m.o., a problem of "finding new ideas" than to do better and more accurately what has been already done.

Like if I change the length like this, I won't be able to find a wire of 500 m of more than 0.5 mm of diameter, and with 87 milliOhms by meter instead of 24 milliOhms for 1 mm and 0.01 milliOhms for 1.5 mm. See the additional losses if only 0.5 mm! And power needed to feed that monster?! And most important: many conditions and material changed. This could value a try, but after having acheived with less power.

Do you have cheap but stable and precise enough frequency generator to advise me? Or any equilavent?

Here what Hoppy has wrote to me:

"
I have read through the build & test specification but unfortunately I do not have the required frequency generator. I don't think that a DDS AD9851 with an HF Amp is a suitable substitute to a properly calibrated frequency generator.
"

But think he said that to be able to go up to the advanced experiments where precision looks to be important.

Regards, Tim

Best regards, Khwartz.

[Khwartz]

Very nice clear report. Thanks tim.

The 2 copper pipes were 300 mm long right? Could remember me the Richard's frequency for 600 mm? Please.