Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[zaydana]

utilitarian: I almost didn't realize you were being sarcastic just then...

[DrZLowe7]

What? Watts = Volts X current . Not Volts X voltage drop. You say you are producing around 200 volts with a 3 volt voltage drop you now have 197 volts . 197 volts X .0086 = 1.6942 watts. However because we are using AC to operate the LED's they are on 50% 0f the time off 50% of the time. So 1.6942 / 2 =.8471 watts a loss of 89mw not over unity

Maybe your using AC, I'm not.............

@DrZLowe7 - I worked in the telecommunications industry for 20 years. It is a network which is inherently DC, and makes use of varying DC and AC signal superimposition.

Do not confuse VARYING DC with AC. Although varying DC signals have all the qualities of an AC one, they have one parameter which true AC does not. They have a DC offset bias. It may not seem important, but it is exremely important! Varying DC only has a varying Voltage component vector, i.e direction. The current component vector doesn't change direction, only the amount or "intensity" of the current varies.
You need a transformer to make the final shift from varying DC to AC.

This is why Stifflers original diagrams are so unique, and made me take notice. In his earlier diagrams, the primary of the transformer was only connected at one end. The primary coil current would have been miniscule in such an open circuit condition.

Now there is nothing unusual about an open ended HV secondary, but what is unusual is that the O/P from the secondary took place at all when the primary current could only be achieved by capacitive leakage through the air. With such a weak primary coil interface, the AC coupling produced by the core, even at RF, would be expected to be miniscule. But very bright lights suggested otherwise!

I like bright lights   

Cheers all

You are correct. I well know about varying DC verses AC. However Dr Stiffler and EMdevices set me straight. I was so intense on disproving the math that I did not really look at it. And like I said my mouth was running faster than my brain. I was born in West Virgina the law of the feud rules there. I went to school with Hatfields and the McCoys lived on the other side of the mountain. The rule was ounce an enemy always an enemy. I try to fight up bringing and genetics as much as possible when they a negative but some times I just go off. I have apologized to Dr. Stiffler for this. I hope he knows it was not easy and will forgive me. As I was accusing him very type of deception I could think of. This is almost unforgivable but I hope he has a big HEART.

[plengo]

Guys,

Here's a schematic of the simple experiment to light LEDs with one wire.

Notice the stray capacitance.    

The beginner in electronics can't understand why you can conduct current with one wire, but it's because of this stray capacitance.   Ask yourself why current flows across a parallel plate capacitor, there IS NO CONTACT BETWEEN THE PLATES.  How can this happen?     It's the influence of the electric fields and the charges that accumulate and how they repell like charges and attract opposite charges.

Now that is not the whole story,  you realy need to understand EM fields and waves.   A single wire has a capacitance per unit length and an inductance per unit length.   It's a transmission line, and at certain frequencies, where the wavelength is just right it becomes a very effective ANTENNA. 

So, if you tune to a resonant frequency, even though you have one wire, you will increase the current flow, and yes, the LED's will light up with very little current !!!

In Summary:   POWER COMES FROM THE FREQUENCY GENERATOR

If it doesn't come from there, why don't you unplug and remove this extra useless electronic box and still keep those LED's lit    LOL 

EM

Thank you EMdevices, I really appreciate your patience and effort in explaining this phenomena. I also admire you looking in detail what Dr. Stiffler is showing us and willing to accept that he might be right based on the evidence shown.

I am still puzzled about a few things though, not to be rude or picking a fight or anything like that, I am really trying to understand how "you all" are seeing this things in a way that I simply have not seen.

I will try to explain as best as I can the conflict that I am having with the current view of RF and Resonance and Stray Capacitance and Transmission Lines theories that you and others have explained (including in this site http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/3.html and http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/4.html for reference).

When I look at the experiment that I did and you kindly repeated with your nice drawing (the guy on the left actually looks like me really ) I see that you are explaining it away using the Stray Capacitance and Transmission line as the reason for the current being in effect and lighting the LEDs which even make perfect sence except that when I look up the theories about those points they all explain it in "almost" the same way as you did except that the distance of the lines of transmission, or the cable where the guy on the drawing is touching and the ground up to the other lead of the Func Gen, they ARE in parallel and to close proximity. If I account for the distance of the cables in my experiment and plug that into the mathematical formulas the stray capacitance would absolutely be irrelevant.

That's where I am confused and have been asking if someone could "really" explain how my experiment is in line with RF or Stray capacitance at all! you see?

I confess I still have to lookup more into the "Antenna" theories to really make sure this would still be really explained.

Do you see my problem? I understand Stray capacitance is there in my experiment but not in the sence that is presented in the theories. That's why I am stating that the energy is not coming from the Func.Gen but some place else.

Concerning your question about removing the FuncGen: Of course If I remove the FuncGen it should not work. I will have then say the same about Dr. Stiffler Thomas Osc design, which makes no sence at all. Off course WE can not remove the "black box" that generates the power even thought that same "black box" does not produce ALL the power. It is an effect here.

Is it possible to have Stray Capacitance between the open lead of the FuncGen through the air and the other cable 3 feet away (as shown on my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDjSMtiElgI) to the level that current would flow to light 80+ LEDs? (I have the same experiment with all that many LEDs too). It sounds almost like there is an "invisible cable" closing the loop. Thats very difficult for me to accept. I would though understand that same phenomena if I was running the same experiment using a two wire cables in close proximity and in parallel to each other as all the other theories I have seen explains.

Fausto.

ps: some definitions:
A transmission line is a pair of parallel conductors exhibiting certain characteristics due to distributed capacitance and inductance along its length.

[EMdevices]

*removed* EM

[EMdevices]

*removed* EM