Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[zaydana]

@utilitarian:

There are quite a few reasons that doing that isn't quite as good idea as it initially seems.

For a start, connecting the output wires to the input wires would be closing the circuit, which from my limited understanding is a Bad Thing (tm) with these sorts of alternative energy circuits. Closing the circuit, in Tom Bearden's words, "Kills the dipole".

Secondly, because of the efficiency of components in the circuit, this device would need to have a COP much higher than just 1 to be able to use something like a solar panel to close the circuit. From the numbers that Dr. Stiffler recently posted, the circuit does have a COP > 1, but would likely not be self powering.

And lastly, and I could be wrong on this one, even if closing the circuit wasn't an inherently bad idea with this type of claim, its not as simple as just connecting the output wires to the input wires. There is quite a bit of extra circuitry you need to get it working.

This may be a bit hypocritical since I haven't got my coils yet and thus can't replicate it myself, but I really urge people to stop making suggestions for changing the circuit unless they have built it themselves. It really kills the conversation.


@Dr. Stiffler:

I must ask your opinion on asking for numbers, measurements, etc. Amigo, who seems to have made a lot of progress, seems fairly insistent that we drop the "Old Ways". Now, I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but it seems to me that you don't have a problem with using numbers and equations, so long as they agree with your observations? The key being that traditionally people would claim that something is impossible if the numbers are too far removed from predictions, but you'd rather state that the numbers are wrong, and what is in front of you is obviously correct?

Forgive me if it sounds like an attack, but really all I'm trying to do is figure out what is acceptable use of current theories, and what is going to get people riled up. Obviously existing models must have some merit under certain situations, or we wouldn't have the internet to discuss these things. But I think we can all agree these models are not perfect.

[amigo]

Well if you want more women, Stefan will have to offer more diverse shopping.  Right now it's just magnet toys and stuff.  From my experience with women, they are not interested in that.

But back to what you said, could you elaborate on the "radically new" part?  What do you propose?

I see a new face here, welcome aboard !

I know most women would be hard to attract to these kinds of subjects, but there must be a few out there. After all we share the world with them as equal partners and should try to make them participants in all things, especially when they concern our collective future.

Radically new would imply for starters no closed loops. Nature is not a closed loop and so we shouldn't be pissing up-wind (or you know what happens). I suppose closed loop systems have been invented because they were convenient or easy or people at the time thought Nature worked that way or for whatever other reason. Fact is, we need to transition away from that, in both power sources and machinery that utilizes them.

Right now what we are doing is instead of curing hemophilia, we are patching the wound by applying band-aids with silver particle coating (that's the novelty part, the "free energy" in this case) in hope that'll stop the bleeding. What we must do is stop using band-aids and look into the body to see what happens in there that's causing hemophilia at the first place. And I mean this both literally and metaphorically.

Human body is a machine, a very complex one based on many biochemlectrical interactions, but never the less one. Nature is a machine as well, just so much more complex, and neither have any closed loops or they'd short circuit immediately and burn up due to overheating (the wasted energy) *grin*.

We have a blueprint for the "free energy" machine, it is our vehicle that we inhabit, so why not look within, under the hood, instead of seeking answers from without. But this whole world looks like is based on "patching" things, hoping the patch holds until someone in the future resolves the problem. Not many willing to take the responsibility right now.

[DrStiffler]

@ Dr Stiffler
In the hopes of fostering reproducibility, I have created a printed circuit board artwork file based on your Thomas Oscillator circuit.  With your approval, I would like to release the file to members of this forum, preferably, from your web site. I will be happy to mark the design with any copyright information you think is appropriate. I have already marked it for "non commercial use only"  Just let me know if, and where to send the file. 
This PCB file could be emailed to one of many On-Line board fabricators like www.expresspcb.com, or for people who like to make their own, the file can be laser printed onto special ink jet paper, and ironed directly onto a copper clad board. Also, the design is not set in stone, so based on inputs from yourself and forum members, I will be willing to make various edits and changes as time permits.

Great idea, except if I am near correct it is not the mounting of components that has presented the primary hold back. At my site you can see a simple coil and LED on a cardboard surface. It seems the coil has from the start become the hangup. People don't want to try and obtain the correct one, or they want to use something  they have or wind a coil on some obscure ferrite.

You may indeed have a great idea and it may work, but for me I have far to many worms to feed to be able to take on more. Someway maybe you can do this without me getting involved. But go for it, this would help, have you made allocation for measurement components? Like 1 ohm samplers, ferrite's and decoupling caps.?

Thank you for the offer.

[k4zep]

I wonder if the LEDs can be replaced with an equivalent resistor.

assuming 150 Volts across the 10 uF cap.  Then we calculate R :

     R = 150 volts / 8.6 mA = 17.4 K ohm

If this gives the same results, supper, if not, it might be some LED dynamics that we might not fully understand.

Can you draw a detailed schematic of your circuit?   Is it the basic Thomas oscillator you had on your web page?

EM

LEDS, sometime in the hopefully near future with equipment better than mine for thermal measurement will confirm or deny my meager observation. But if you look at www.drstiffler.com/buildup.asp at the bottom of the page, you may see what I am talking about and I will not bother to go further than to state that the LEDS appear to be "Thermal Neutral".

A resistor can be connected across the circuit in place of the LEDS and the measurements are very favorable and equivalent heat is evident. There is another approach that I worked on before leaving for the holidays, yet there is an issue of will the person making the suggestion accept the credit, as I can not and can not discuss it until this is resolved. But a better method than the resistor does exist where the out come is significant.

The osc. is the 'Thomas' osc and it uses a PN200 transistor. There is a startup resistor of 220K from the collector to the base. The collector end of the standard coil arrangement is coupled to the base through a 56pF Silver Mica. Thats it except for the standard power rail decoupling.

CAUTION! Every one should use care with these circuits, they can bite and STILL will for no reason burn out significant numbers of LEDS. When using filter caps across the Plug, never remove or add or break the series chain until you have carefully removed the capacitor and discharged it. Other wise bye, bye LEDS.

ATTENTION ALL!

These circuits have been on circuit boards for some 5 days now, in various configurations and work BETTER than on the proto-board with all its stray capacity.

**If you can not get to my web sites its because their DNS was lost when they were shut down by mistake. The pointer returned to the host. DNS replication can take up to 72 hours world wide.

Hi Dr. Stiffler, 

The transistor is the PN100, NPN.....the PN200 is the PNP complementary to it.  Good to hear about the circuit board versions and the story on the server/your site!

On vacation in SC.  Happy Thanksgiving for the locals!

Ben

[DrStiffler]

@utilitarian:

There are quite a few reasons that doing that isn't quite as good idea as it initially seems.

For a start, connecting the output wires to the input wires would be closing the circuit, which from my limited understanding is a Bad Thing (tm) with these sorts of alternative energy circuits. Closing the circuit, in Tom Bearden's words, "Kills the dipole".

Secondly, because of the efficiency of components in the circuit, this device would need to have a COP much higher than just 1 to be able to use something like a solar panel to close the circuit. From the numbers that Dr. Stiffler recently posted, the circuit does have a COP > 1, but would likely not be self powering.

And lastly, and I could be wrong on this one, even if closing the circuit wasn't an inherently bad idea with this type of claim, its not as simple as just connecting the output wires to the input wires. There is quite a bit of extra circuitry you need to get it working.

This may be a bit hypocritical since I haven't got my coils yet and thus can't replicate it myself, but I really urge people to stop making suggestions for changing the circuit unless they have built it themselves. It really kills the conversation.


@Dr. Stiffler:

I must ask your opinion on asking for numbers, measurements, etc. Amigo, who seems to have made a lot of progress, seems fairly insistent that we drop the "Old Ways". Now, I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but it seems to me that you don't have a problem with using numbers and equations, so long as they agree with your observations? The key being that traditionally people would claim that something is impossible if the numbers are too far removed from predictions, but you'd rather state that the numbers are wrong, and what is in front of you is obviously correct?

Forgive me if it sounds like an attack, but really all I'm trying to do is figure out what is acceptable use of current theories, and what is going to get people riled up. Obviously existing models must have some merit under certain situations, or we wouldn't have the internet to discuss these things. But I think we can all agree these models are not perfect.

There is NO reason why someone could explain this in a slightly modified conventional way. Would be similar to conventional physics and QM, one leaves off and the other picks up. My only observation on explaining it in conventional theory and law is that to do that 'How would you accept SEC', COP isn't really the right thing to use here, but yoiu did so lets use it. How do you in convention explain COP>1. Currently the only way is to say I and many others are wrong in our observations?

But if you have an angle, lets go for it right?