The Young Effect, my gift to the free energy movement!

[hartiberlin]

The ban on user TheBuzz is lifted again and I hope that there will
be no more namecallings and that the discussion will
be ontopic and respectfully.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

[Koen1]

Hey thanks for the support guys - that feels nice. However, I am TheBuzz and TheBuzz is banned. My messages are in TheBuzz's mailbox. My 30 years of research was disclosed under TheBuzz's username.

hmm... Well perhaps you could really undisclose it again because it seems to have gone missed... What exactly was "disclosed"?
Your belief that cavitation in some form or other is the OU solution? Could you perhaps "disclose" some more exact and convincing
data except for your pesonal conviction?

And what's with the multi-accounting? That's a fairly typical adolescent prankster trick, isn't it? Not really something serious people do...
... but that's just how I feel about it...

Maybe you could get Hartman to undo that ban on the TheBuzz so I can go over to the cavitation thread and explain what 30 years has taught me and leave the pirate and Captain Pecan's thread to them.

Err... why don't you just go down there as Meltdown and post your stuff?
It's not like you can only remember Buzz's alleged 30 years of experience when you're logged in as Buzz now, is it?
If you didn't want Buzz to get banned, you shouldn't have acted like such an ass.

I realize that my sense of humor is not for everyone and I also realize that I am thin skinned. I apologize for the times I was unfair and I do not apologize for defending myself when attacked.

Well that's something I guess.

I have no belief or disbelief. I am pure logic to the core - all science. Social science is not my forte and I am working on it in my spare time. I have no spare time, I am getting old.

Then behave a bit more civilised please. Old people shouldn't throw teenage fits, it's not healthy. And if you have no spare time,
then don't waste your time picking fights. Show people clear and undeniably convincing evidence of your cavitation OU conviction and they may agree.
Tell people they're stupid and should piss off like you did, and they'll not be convinced as easily.

So if I offend someones ego, it is my way of challenging the magical thinking that it is based in.

That is just not true.
If you intentionally offend someone, you are intentionally trying to hurt their feelings, not trying to get them to think logically.
Is that how you were taught things? Did your teachers continually insult and offend you, and that's how they taught you mathematics and English
for example? If so, then perhaps I must point out that is not a didactically sound method and not generally the normal way of teaching people.

And that you may have had fights woth a few members of this forum on other sites does not mean it is logical nor acceptable
to start picking fights with those people here.

If you wish to bring more rationalisation and logic into the discussion then do so by presenting coherent, clear, and logical
arguments supported by data that will convince people.
Do not do it by insulting people and picking fights.
Some people are devoted to their "belief" in a certain interpretation of Free Energy "lore". Let them.
If you have a clear argument to the contrary, those who do have some logic will see, and those devoted to illogical approaches
will stick with their own experiments. Everyone likes a hobby, and some prefer belief over logic. Their choice.

I have reverse engineered the Ark of the Covenant, created a plausible explanation for the double slit experiment and the extra bands of light in the Bohr model of the atom. I am always willing to share what I have learned. For if I did not, it would all be for not.

Ok well then do so?

So, ark of covenant, simply a large box capacitor with a retroreflective antenna, or an actual chemical battery powered "zapper" transmitter?
I think the last and think I've got a few nice leads, but since you claim you have completely reverse engineered it I'd like to hear your take.
Plausible explanation for the two slit experiment, in what way? Is interference not plausible enough? Is your explanation classical or
Schrödinger based, is it miltidimensional ("brane"-like), what? And the Bohr model? Ok, cool, but why that model and not any of the others?
What about the Mills classical model? Thoughts on that?

There you go, a nice whad of very unmagical unsupersticious ideas for you to practise a little of that logic and willingness to teach that
you mentioned earlier.
And I would like to hear some of your thoughts on those, really. Without the insults please, if possible.
Thanks.

Kind regards,
Koen

(and not Keon like some dyslexics here seem to read every time)

P.S. Oh darn, SORRY for posting this in your thread CaptainPecan, I shall try to keep things on-topic only in the future.

[CabinBoy]

CabinBoy has noticed that people with a low IQ tend to make very short posts. That is what is interesting about Koen1's posts.

[captainpecan]

Regarding your experiments - you say you're showing the work done by your motor for free... Lifting weights? Yes, this is a solid proof method (i like it very much!)
But.. How much weight and how high? With a little speculation, I'd say "a few grams, a few centimeters high" (or anything in between)...

That would be in the order of miliJoules of useful work performed by a motor in your experiment. And I think you know that you're still "missing" at least 10-times more energy than that....

I am not claiming overunity by any means with this experiment, just trying to understand why my results dont show more losses than they do. And actually, yes there is a lot of energy missing in this scenario, I agree.  But the work done is useful work, not just a gram lifted a cm, but I do get your point. Believe me.

I sorted the results by starting voltage, as it shows exactly why it "appeared" to be losing less energy.  It is obvious by these results that the very small decrease in energy loss is simply due to the added inductance in the line, and less energy even left the first capacitor to start with.  That explains why less energy was lost. That's my take on it anyway.

I do find it interesting though, that if you lose half your energy simply transfering from cap to cap, it would seem you would lose a noticeable amount more when you use that energy to do work along the way between them.  My test results seem to show different, which was the entire meaning of this thread to start with. Energy does not "DIE" when it hits a motor. It flows right through it, and can continue being used to do work. Energy appears to only be lost due to resistance and other factors, but not necessarily by the force used to push those magnets around in the motor. Just my thoughts. Maybe I can be shown different or given more valuable advice as to how to prove otherwise.

[captainpecan]

@tinu

Thanks for the detailed reply. I will read it over a few times to make sure I dont miss anything in there, lol. On a side note, I am considering capacitor tolerance. Mine are rated at + - 5% which clearly falls in the category of my results.  I do however think the results are not due to the tolerance in this case. Simply the addition of the inductor in the circuit has caused less energy to flow from C1 to C2.  Less energy flows, less losses occur. No great discovery there, lol.  Just posting my results so I may understand them better.  Thanks for your insights.

I did notice your opinion explaining the results a little though.  If I read your post correctly, your saying it's possible that the C2 is losing less energy because it is being charged slower, due to the motor in the circuit. And the motor is causing energy loss also.  The sum of less energy lost on C2 and more energy lost from the motor, equal almost the same energy loss with or without the motor.  I think that is what you were getting at anyway.  Seems reasonable, but not sure I can test that.  I need another motor of identical specs to hook to the circuit in series.  Dont have one right now.