Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[fritz]

Besides, most people are so inverted, if it is true, they think it is a lie, black is white, up is down. Most people (Americans) have been so chemically (...)

I think the underlying problem is the existence of black/white, up/down, true/lie
topology itself.
Working together(as European) with my colleagues in San Jose was quite thrilling.
If you agree, they love you, if you dare to raise some critical comment they feel
personal offended.
Don?t know if that is a language or cultural problem. (wrong input or unexpected response)
I prefer the "grey" topology.
For me, a critcal comment means that somebody is interested - no comment or just blind "yes"
- not (really) interested.
What is black / white for if its used by so different, individual people ?

rgds, yes this is off-topic.

[Freenrg4me]

*Removed* by RStiffler

[jonesbeene]

For the benefit of those who are actually working to replicate, or to try variations of cores LEDs etc, or to improve on this circuit, it would be better NOT to begin with the old CE5 or earlier incarnations, in my opinion.

The old one does work, but the newer circuit will drive at least 20 LEDs (now way more than that) so why go backwards? It is simple, and copyrighted to Dr.Stiffler so do not post it elsewhere. Please do post your results - positive or negative.

The only way to make huge strides quickly is cooperation and openness. Knowing what doesn't work is almost as helpful as knowing what does. I will not bore you with yet another requote of Edison's famous quip about incandescent lamp filaments.

Jones

[jonesbeene]

The sling and double-sling effect are discussed on the German site here:
http://www.evert.de/eft708e.htm

There are probably other names for this effect as well, but 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, and is able to boost ambient energy in someway into the alternate form.

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, and if ambient energy has been cohered.

All of this came up in response the mention of 'resonant rise' and the observation that the Imris
patent presents a similar 'resonant rise' 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 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 for sure?

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.

Jones

[amigo]

@Freenrg4me

I believe the idea here is not to play games or teach "students" new things through puzzles. If those of us with 1/4 of a brain have to figure out how to positively replicate this instead of a straight forward put this here and there, then it leads me to believe good old doc has purposely obscured it.

At this point of time it should be more important to allow everyone to replicate the effects as easy as possible, instead of giving them somewhat incomplete details and hoping they figure it out on their own. A positive replication from dozens of people would stand out as an undeniable proof of validity of claims from the doc. So far I haven't read about anyone yet confirming this to be working...

Oh, and you forgot to add Fluoride as a neurotoxin in water that keeps people docile. It worked for Stalin to keep his prison population at bay, and it surely works on most Americans as well