GBluer(Slayer) Exiter

[NickZ]

kultus:
  If you don't see any similarities, it's because you are blindly flapping away. Look again.
Slayer also has several different circuits, not just one. If you really knew what you are talking about you'd see that, but you obviously don't.
  It doesn't matter to us who you think you are, to tell us to shut up, you may as well not post. Nobody on this or other forums wants to hear your comments.
  Do you own homework... better yet, don't come back.

[ramset]

Rodelu
Quote
My first build ever was the Slayer Exciter!Thank you for sharing your circuits and knowledge! You have helped me a lot in starting on this journey.


--------------------------------------------




See that's what some would call gratitude!!,


Welcome to our community,we have a vision for the future .....




Thx
Chet

[Rfacts]

I'm posting this for the record because this is no small matter.  There is a copyrighted document by Dr. Stiffler that includes a schematic of one of his SEC exciters which clearly proves that the so called Slayer exciter is a very close variation of Dr. Stiffler's SEC exciter circuit.  The document I'm referring to starts by stating "Beginning in 2001 Dr. Stiffler began exploring special oscillators of his design....  This document can't be legally posted and I don't know if there is a link to it but Dr. Stiffler just uploaded a video of a 2 Coil Electrolyzer that includes SEC exciter schematic.  At 3:10 in the video, as Dr. Stiffler goes over the circuit he states "This is a standard configuration for a SEC exciter.".  Over the years Dr. Stiffler has used his SEC exciter circuit in various configurations, this is just the latest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRk-J6-OeWs

I captured an image from Dr. Stiffler's video of his SEC exciter schematic and have attached it along with GBluer's exciter circuit from page 5 post#66 of this thread, in one of his very few and brief postings about this issue GBluer stated that this was the circuit that TeslaTronix was using.  When I went back to double check that I was accurately posting this information I found that on page 4 post#59 of this thread GBluer posted the following:

"This video is to show how you can use two diodes and one LED for a indicator light for your exiter.
It helps with tunning and hepls protect the A.

Dr Stiffler uses it in his SEC 18 series and it also works very good with this circuit."

GBluer was clearly and openly following and using Dr. Stiffler's work.  In the following video, GBluer starts by stating that Dr. Stiffler uses the two diodes and LED to make an indicator light.  Dr. Stiffler's primary reason for using the two diodes and LED at the base of the transistor is not to provide an indicator light, GBluer later removed the LED in his experimental circuit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naN-cLCgDyY

Not only did the basic exciter circuit and the two 1N4148 diodes at the base of the transistor come from Dr. Stiffler's circuit but GBluer also used the same MPSA06 NPN transistor, 1 megohm resistor and referred to it as an exciter circuit.  GBluer only removed the series LC tuning circuit that was in parallel to the two diodes and LED in Dr. Stiffler's SEC exciter circuit and experimented with different configurations of the same circuit. 

Knowing this, how can GBluer be objectively considered the original inventor of this exciter circuit?  As SeaMonkey and others have rightly pointed out, the burden of proof is/was on GBluer to prove that he was the original inventor.  I think it is reasonable to conclude that he wouldn't have made it through the patent process if he had tried.  GBluer can't have it both ways: Imply he is giving away the exciter circuit that he is experimenting with by sharing it in the public domain and also try to retain the rights to something he never proved was his to begin with.

GBluer has remained very quiet about this.  Instead others, especially Kultus (DesertExperimenter), have represented him very badly with some verifiable lies and exaggerations that I detailed in my post#210 on this thread.  How about we not attack someone before fully investigating the facts and not try to put a stop to someone, like some might argue 'Big Oil' would do, by using lies, exaggerations, double standards and safety issues.

Let's give well deserved credit to Dr. Stiffler, whose work this originates from and credit the others as variations of his exciter circuit when applicable.

[ramset]

RF
You Highlight some facts ??


Here's a good one, Folks like Stiffler come here to help the community ,{he thought we were a community}
he shares parts of his work hoping to inspire men of like mind ,as well as teach.


Its a fragile relationship but it has been moving along.


Unless I missed the part where Slayer has been "TRYING" to financially benefit at the cost of Stifflers good will?

TT brings a" brick"[to the fragile] and some change to this community,sometimes Change is good !

it can really shine a light!!


THX
Chet
PS
I must note this whole concept seems like another language to the "TAKERS"....
Taking is Oh so easy sometimes ....
However,the "givers" do pay attention !!

[slayer007]

I'm posting this for the record because this is no small matter.  There is a copyrighted document by Dr. Stiffler that includes a schematic of one of his SEC exciters which clearly proves that the so called Slayer exciter is a very close variation of Dr. Stiffler's SEC exciter circuit.  The document I'm referring to starts by stating "Beginning in 2001 Dr. Stiffler began exploring special oscillators of his design....  This document can't be legally posted and I don't know if there is a link to it but Dr. Stiffler just uploaded a video of a 2 Coil Electrolyzer that includes SEC exciter schematic.  At 3:10 in the video, as Dr. Stiffler goes over the circuit he states "This is a standard configuration for a SEC exciter.".  Over the years Dr. Stiffler has used his SEC exciter circuit in various configurations, this is just the latest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRk-J6-OeWs

I captured an image from Dr. Stiffler's video of his SEC exciter schematic and have attached it along with GBluer's exciter circuit from page 5 post#66 of this thread, in one of his very few and brief postings about this issue GBluer stated that this was the circuit that TeslaTronix was using.  When I went back to double check that I was accurately posting this information I found that on page 4 post#59 of this thread GBluer posted the following:

"This video is to show how you can use two diodes and one LED for a indicator light for your exiter.
It helps with tunning and hepls protect the A.

Dr Stiffler uses it in his SEC 18 series and it also works very good with this circuit."

GBluer was clearly and openly following and using Dr. Stiffler's work.  In the following video, GBluer starts by stating that Dr. Stiffler uses the two diodes and LED to make an indicator light.  Dr. Stiffler's primary reason for using the two diodes and LED at the base of the transistor is not to provide an indicator light, GBluer later removed the LED in his experimental circuit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naN-cLCgDyY

Not only did the basic exciter circuit and the two 1N4148 diodes at the base of the transistor come from Dr. Stiffler's circuit but GBluer also used the same MPSA06 NPN transistor, 1 megohm resistor and referred to it as an exciter circuit.  GBluer only removed the series LC tuning circuit that was in parallel to the two diodes and LED in Dr. Stiffler's SEC exciter circuit and experimented with different configurations of the same circuit. 

Knowing this, how can GBluer be objectively considered the original inventor of this exciter circuit?  As SeaMonkey and others have rightly pointed out, the burden of proof is/was on GBluer to prove that he was the original inventor.  I think it is reasonable to conclude that he wouldn't have made it through the patent process if he had tried.  GBluer can't have it both ways: Imply he is giving away the exciter circuit that he is experimenting with by sharing it in the public domain and also try to retain the rights to something he never proved was his to begin with.

GBluer has remained very quiet about this.  Instead others, especially Kultus (DesertExperimenter), have represented him very badly with some verifiable lies and exaggerations that I detailed in my post#210 on this thread.  How about we not attack someone before fully investigating the facts and not try to put a stop to someone, like some might argue 'Big Oil' would do, by using lies, exaggerations, double standards and safety issues.

Let's give well deserved credit to Dr. Stiffler, whose work this originates from and credit the others as variations of his exciter circuit when applicable.

RFacts the only thing in your post your right about is I am a big fan of Dr Stiffler and his work.
If you would have taken the time to build the two circuits before you posted you would see they are nothing alike.
The only similarities they have is how they both excite the environment  around them hence the name exciter.
The way the transistor is triggered, the coil arrangement the only similarities is the name exciter and how they excite the environment.

PS Chet and others Thank You for your kind post.