Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets

[ramset]

Professor,
Moderation of this forum is up to the partisipants in the thread,If they complain to the "Boss" ,censorship begins.

you are in with a group of some serious talent here ,it would be nice if they could take some of this more seriously.

We know about Poynts place ,and that is always an option.

Having a physicist as a  cousin[also a teacher ] ,I can
appreciate what you are doing [or trying to do].

It ain't easy ,but i suspect it will be well worth it!!

Thanks
Chetkremens@gmail.com
PS
If you like we can petition the boss to start a moderated thread,which you will be in charge of ,than posts like the  one above will simply disappear.

[XS-NRG]

Why would he do that Chet?
He has found his well moderated place elsewhere...so why is he still here?

Can you tell me?

[PhysicsProfessor]

@PhysicsProfesser

Dear Professor,

I will hold out the olive branch and kindly ask the others to back off and give me some space, or I will call upon TheBuzz and get all medieval on your asses. Seriously guys, give me a moment of civility with this gentleman.

You seem torn between two worlds. In your day job, you teach students free energy is not possible (in the physical sense) and then you come and are ridiculed when you hold that up as credibility. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

  For the record, the above statement by you is not accurate, but less important than what follows IMO.

The problem is further compounded when you ride a horse like Lawrence. Years ago, I read his leed-out theory for about 10 minutes and dismissed him as just another sub-genius with delusions of grandeur.

You can be the best jockey on Earth but if you are sitting on a donkey in a horse race, you become the donkey. We are often judged by the company we keep and so far, the only thing Lawrence has proven is that he figured out how to add more advertisements to this forum. I suppose in that regard, he accomplished the impossible.

I am an experimentalist, guided by solid experimental results.  In my career, I have brought forth solid evidence (later verified) that was contrary to THEORY at the time.  As an experimentalist, I enjoy doing just that -- and that is how science progresses.
Whether Lawrence is "right" or not depends on experiments -- careful repeated measurements -- which I have not yet completed.

So let us wipe the black board clean and start fresh. I will make you three promises:

1. Our conversation will be civil.
2. You are going to learn something.
3. You are going to question everything you thought you knew about electromagnetics.

Sounds good to this experimentalist.

Now, that is a mighty heady way to start a conversation but I never talk shit unless I am intentionally trying to bait someone into telling me something. I do it all the time but I will not bait you in this conversation.

As an act of good faith, I will tell you something personal about myself. When I got out of the military, (nuclear submarines) I took my GI bill and decided to go to school. (About 1979)

After the first class, I approached the physics professor and showed him a magnet motor idea I had. The principle was sound and in retrospect it was similar to Howard Johnsons flux gate. Without investigation, he dismissed my idea by telling me "It violates second law. You can't get something from nothing."

I clicked the magnets together in my hand and replied "That isn't nothing and I don't want to turn out like you. All you know is what someone programmed into you and that is not knowledge, that is a belief." I went on to tell him "I am not coming back here since I don't want to become like you. I need to form my own thoughts." Hence my total disdain for all things magical thinking.

I don't know what my life would have been like had I got an education. As it were, I started a computer business and things worked out for me. That was my first and only day in college. The education I have is the one I gave myself.

That first and last day of college began the first step of a journey of nearly 35 years. I now feel I am able to understand the physics of electromagnetic energy at least at an empirical level and explain some of those mysteries like the double slit experiment, Faraday's disk, the real Leedscalnin PMH experiment that nobody seems to do or Marinov's perpetual mobile.

I would like to talk to you about these "mysteries"...  at an "empirical level" is indeed my style.

That is real information about me and I don't share anything personal with anyone. I don't come here to make friends, I come here to learn, teach and sometimes have some fun making trouble. It is a process that gets people to spill information. So let our conversation begin and in the end I will give you an experiment that will puzzle you and your peers for life - perpetual motion.

I'm not saying you can't do it until I see the actual experiment -- but so far, that's just hot air.

The first thing you need to learn is what electricity is and they don't teach that in school. Often you will find the word phenomena associated with the definition because some of the most simple questions cannot be answered. When academia does attempt to provide an answer, it is nothing more than a label like "field" or "force carrier" which begins a circular thought and in the end explains nothing.

On a related note - I think Feynman got it just before he died or maybe confession was good for the soul after the Papp incident decades prior. Feynman appeared on a PBS special with Mandelbrot and Feynman spilled the free energy beans that Bohm had figured out back in the 70's as I recall.

Again, very interesting.  If you have a link or reference to a written transcript, I will read it.

So we should start at the beginning and end at the end. I promise you in the end, you are going to finally understand what is happening at a sub-atomic level and electricity will suddenly all make sense. Then you will better understand why Lawrence's experiment is flawed and why he and others are ridiculed on this joule thief subject.

Experimental evidence first, please.

The first "effect" of electrical production is voltage. Voltage is a vacuum field and that is why an electron attempts to fill that space. We measure a voltage field by the tension and that tension is a vacuum. So in reality, at an atomic level if you flipped your scope upside down, it would indicate accurately. No wonder people are confused huh? I only think in relative particle charges and it took years for me to deprogram myself.

But first we have a little puzzle that needs to be solved. Voltage moves at the speed of light, an electron moves down a wire slightly less than 1 meter per minute while the magnet is passing the inductor at say 2 meters per second.

How did we go from 2 meters per second with a magnet to the speed of light? If you look up the definition of voltage, it will say something like voltage is the photonic force carrier of the electromagnetic force. This is not accurate.

So the first question I have for you is: What caused the speed amplification of a magnet moving 2 meters per second to voltage moving at 299,792,458 m/s - the speed of light?

Try your best to answer that question. I am not interested in writing an essay, I want to have a conversation and the ball is in your court. If you can empirically find a flaw, you will be the first physics professor to do it and I have had this conversation dozens of times and have not lost yet.

Each electron moves slowly in the wire as you correctly state, yet the electric field and correlated voltage is transmitted at or near the speed of light (compared to the slow-speed of the electron) to the end of the wire.  I do not see a contradiction here.  I would say that the effect is like this, by analogy -- a line of like-charged cars in which one moves, pushing the next which pushes the next and so on.  They do not move together (for that would imply faster-than-light impulses), but the impulse moves down the line much faster than the motion of an individual car.  For electrons, which all carry negative charge, the impulse indeed moves at something close to the speed of light.

OK -- now I'm ready to listen to your viewpoint.  Actually, I'm more interested in your claim, "in the end I will give you an experiment that will puzzle you and your peers for life - perpetual motion."

Again, I will politely ask others to stay out of this conversation. If it becomes necessary, I may be able to still start a locked or moderated thread under an old user name.

Sound good to me.

[XS-NRG]

You found a better place so why are you still here?

It's obvious:
You just want our attention

[PhysicsProfessor]

You found a better place so why are you still here?

It's obvious:
You just want our attention

That is false, stated politely.  Your record of provocation and mocking is quite remarkable, XS-NRG (which reminds me of the XS-heat claims of Pons and Fleischmann).  Perhaps it is you that "just wants our attention."

I'm actually quite interested -- as I clearly stated -- in Quark's claim "in the end I will give you an experiment that will puzzle you and your peers for life - perpetual motion."'