Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[Pirate88179]

@ Amigo:

I beg to differ...respectfully of course.  Overunity is all around us in nature.  Orbiting electrons and protons do not slow down and we did not start them spinning in their orbits and on a larger scale the planets and the solar system exhibits ou in my opinion as well.  I don't want to get into a big discussion on what overunity is as I have seen that before and everyone on here appears to have a differing opinion about it.  To some on the forum, finding a log in the forest and lighting it on fire, thereby getting out more energy in heat than you put in, is ou.  I don't agree with this of course but, if you ask you will see many, many varied opinions about it.  So, if we are all supposedly seeking it, and we all can't agree on what it is, how will we know if we ever find it or not?  I have no answer to this.

Just some thoughts on what I have observed.  OU or not, the Doc's circuit is certainly amazing to me anyway as are many things on this forum.  Thanks.

Bill

[hoptoad]

Just some thoughts on what I have observed.  OU or not, the Doc's circuit is certainly amazing to me anyway as are many things on this forum.  Thanks.
Bill

I'm amazed too. Especially the Doc's latest video with electrolysis at 6 ma. I have performed many electrolysis experiments in recent years with wide ranging results. Some pleasing, some not. Distilled water is very hard to crack without a reasonable voltage to create the current necessary for meaningful hydrolysis to occur.
Adding electrolytes is one method of lowering the DC resistance of the water, but this invariably introduces a negative impact on one or both of the electrodes, by causing it/them to oxidise.

The method used, and the gas output volume of Doc's little SEC unit is quite mind boggling by any standards I can compare with, especially for a meagre 6 Milliamp current.

Interestingly, the gas yield is normally directly related to current. Similar experiments I have undertaken with pulsed systems has not yielded results anything like the Doc's system at that current level.......... KneeDeep...... I'm still well and truly hooked here.

Fantastic effort Doc Stiffler....... Well done et all....... KneeDeep   

[Loki67671]

@All
Here is my stance. I'm learning how to BUILD this device correctly per the Inventors' instructions and my own experience and exploration. I see no value in making hasty calls of COP / Eff. or anything else while I'm learning except to test my own methods of and the VALIDITY OF those methods and tests. I do this for a living. For REAL! They will be done. Training must come first! Would you want me to test your invention without knowing how to run it correctly? One thing is for certain, talking about it is not helping to gather the answers. EM must be on the metaphoric "board of directors" because that is what those folks sound like........sitting around a table...not doing much....of value to the effort.......but talking........having coffee.......and donuts...then going golfing.........Uhhhh??? Yea right! Here is the standard bull-shit back at you. Two weeks! Your results are due in two weeks! We'll deliver in two weeks! In reality they'll be done when they're done! Hey EM, you were awful F#@*ing light with the budgeting this year.  Funny how that works!

No matter! We will see soon! Doesn't the suspense just kill you? Meanwhile some others and myself are actually trying, and apparently succeeding, to replicate this monster! Damned western philosophy of instantaneous gratification!!!!!! 

Best regards,

Jim   

[Hoppy]

Before you boys get too excited,  do you know how many electrons pass by in a current of 6mA, per second? 

As I see it,  people are skirting around calculating the output energy.   Just do it, or are you afraid the dream might come crashing down?   I know I am at times, so let's be real, calculate the output power and see if you have overunity, else we're just playing with oscillators and RF.

Motors spinning, LED lighting, neons burning, hydrogen bubbling is NOT a measure of OUTPUT ENERGY.  !!!

EM

EM raises a good point here.

I have done a simple test using a motor of similar physical size to Dr. Stiffler's. The motor is from a stripped down miniature tape recorder of some description that I have had in my 'junk' box for a few years. It is labelled as a Mabuchi RF300C-11440 with a DC rating of 5.9V. It is 23mm in diameter with a body height of 12mm excluding the shaft which has a diameter of 2mm.

This motor can turn a small plastic strip prop similar to the first one used by Dr Stiffler powered from a DC bench supply at 2.2V. The motor draws 10.6mA giving a power consumption of just 0.023W!

Try this yourself with any similar spec high efficiency DC motor and be surprised at how little energy is really needed to turn that prop. Please do not ask to run a video of this simple test, just do it for yourself to see how little energy is needed to perform this feat.

Hoppy

[alan]

I think devising a method to measure usable output energy in terms of watts is a good way to show if the experimenter is on the right track, only if... power out / power in > 1 is what we a looking for.

For instance, the Stiffler's circuit with  the computer fan demonstration, try load the fan or another motor with a generator. Generator efficiency is known or can be calculated, then you have got a usable output power, I am sure there are many other ways.
Measuring the correct input power is also important, it is easy to get fooled, especially when we don't really know what we are dealing with.