Overunity.com Archives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM)

QuoteThis gives some construction and performance details on the battery style EESD or B type - an obvious acronym if you think about it - it's long but i know some folks will find it interesting but be warned it's not one to try and browse through.

Are there any issues with this clip?

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 04:51:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM)

Are there any issues with this clip?

worked ok, could even understand the english accent.

those mAh numbers he suggests are serious.

   This thing looks amazing.
   The downside has to be the discharge curve, the wonderful thing about
   the lithium cell is the fact that the potential remains high for a long period.
    To successfully employ Robert's offering some sophisticated electronics
   appear to be needed to yield a constant voltage.

This is not about any YouTube playback issues, the clip plays just fine.  I know that Minnie isn't really hard-core technical, I don't know for SoManyWires.  You don't need sophisticated electronics to maintain a constant voltage, voltage converters are manufactured in the hundreds of millions or billions each year.  So their remains a serious issue, and from that issue stems a lot of other ramifications that are old themes that we are all way too familiar with.

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 01:04:12 PM
This is not about any YouTube playback issues, the clip plays just fine.  I know that Minnie isn't really hard-core technical, I don't know for SoManyWires.  You don't need sophisticated electronics to maintain a constant voltage, voltage converters are manufactured in the hundreds of millions or billions each year.  So their remains a serious issue, and from that issue stems a lot of other ramifications that are old themes that we are all way too familiar with.

Are you suggesting his measurements are wrong? Or methodology erroneous?

  Yes MH, we've got a Tesla p85d and it does work.
I think the battery voltage is something like 350 v.
The thing becomes unfeasable in my mind if your
  supply voltage is halved.
  Half the voltage means double the current.
  I don't think it would work!!
  I realise I'm only a farmer and to me this is just the
  application of logic.
  A cell phone may be all well and good, a sporty car no.

First don't get me wrong I have followed Dr Robert Murray Smith for years and usually replicate a lot of his work but I do think Dr Smith does take a little bit of a scientific license with his calculations. 
1) He uses numbers on the side of the Li Ion battery. The rating levels on a Li Ion battery may not be accurate and could be higher or lower than what is on the manufacturers product. Would the mA/h be lower or higher? Why?
2) He decided it was 13 cells for the Li Ion battery but there seemed to be some confusion when he unraveled it if it was 12 or 13. That would actually play in his favor if it was only 12.
3) Next he used grafoil in his example as the cathode and the anode and this has different electrical properties than copper and aluminum  If they play no part in the active process and only act as conductors perhaps he could do a side by comparison on copper and aluminum.  In the next video C type EESD he uses a thin graphite nano particle coated substrate for his conductors.
4) He was using a water based electrolyte in his separator,  is this practical to keep a separator wet in production or would he have to use a separator similar to the Li Ion Battery in production. 

That said the super capacitor batteries are  far superior to a regular Li Ion but I would prefer to the see a full side by side comparison on a cell by cell bases both under the same load and conditions.

The two products he was using I believe the black is probably a mixture of a graphene doped graphite and a binder like gum arabic and a preservative (he usually uses euxyl PE 9010 I believe).    The green product, I really don't know but sitting on his desk in the video is a green powder and another powder in a container so if anyone has a high res monitor you can probably get a hint. 

I did a bit of thinking whilst doing work and came up with a solution
that sort of satisfied my mind.
If the EES is as good as it's cracked up to be one way would be this:
say my car needs 350v. you could start off with a 700v. storage system
and then use it down to 350v. I can see a possibility of doing this
via switching or what ever.
There's load of exciting things  coming along such as a 6 inch thyristor.
This will allow the construction of UHVDC. lines which will get round the
problem of capacitance.
   

Quote from: minnie on November 29, 2015, 05:22:54 PM

If the EES is as good as it's cracked up to be one way would be this:
say my car needs 350v. you could start off with a 700v. storage system
and then use it down to 350v.

I agree and I think that is what he was trying to say in roundabout way.  His power to weight ratio is much higher.  So he can get around this pretty easy by doubling or even quadrupling  the number of cells and still have a lighter and lower cost battery with a longer life span.  The limiting factor is obviously mass production of single layer graphene at an affordable price and coming up with some form of designed obsolescence built into the device.  You can't have a battery that lasts forever ....

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 04:51:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM)

Are there any issues with this clip?

Well i  watched the clip,and did not hear a specified discharge current for the lithium ion battery-which will determine how much current over time that it can deliver at the rated voltage. Just because your battery says for example !70 amp hour!,dose not mean it will deliver 70 amps for one hour at the batteries rated voltage. If no specific current draw or time is given with that amp hour rating,then it is normally over a period of 8 hours<-- SLA's.

It's one of the most promising things I've seen on here.
I just hope it isn't money going to RMS's mind and that
he won't start giving us dubious results.
  I honestly can't see anything ever coming from magnets
and wires that most all are obsessed with.
   What we need to do is harvest energy from the Sun and
move it around and store it. The efficiency of devices has
made major advances, some things requiring a tenth of the
energy that they did when I was a kid.

Quote from: Nink on November 29, 2015, 05:11:57 PM
4) He was using a water based electrolyte in his separator,  is this practical to keep a separator wet in production or would he have to use a separator similar to the Li Ion Battery in production. 

He made what I would consider a bizarre statement even though I am just a lay person relative to his graphene based battery research.   He says something about the test being done with a simple water based electrolyte but if he had the proper electrolyte he would get a higher voltage and "much more" out of his test cell.  Really?  Just changing the electrolyte means you can now extract more energy from the chemical compounds?   It sounds fishy to me.

In a semi related manner, Sunvault Energy and Edison Power are supposedly going to show an "electric supercar" within four months based on the batteries and caps etc.  If you do a little digging, the claims on the car are ridiculous and are being completely trashed by both technical people and by the investment community.  It casts a very long and dubious shadow over their "electric supercar" pitch and the two companies themselves.  Robert is on the board of directors of Sunvault Energy.  Sunvault Energy company is a typical penny stock company with big claims and not much to show for it.  Don't hold your breath for the supercar.

Nobody has spotted the main issue, but one person is a little bit warm.   In the comments on the YouTbe clip, not a single person has mentioned it either.  It's almost shocking, like sheep being led off to slaughter.

I wish RMS the best with this endeavor. He has provides a ton of info on Graphene to us that he didn't have to for free. It's good to hear that he is on the board of directors with a company that is trying to bring this to the masses. Even Tesla and his claims were ridiculed at times. Sometimes you have to make a product sound a little flashier than it may ultimately be but that is called marketing and doesn't mean it is a scam. So many people ready to cut you down when the jealously of not coming up with the idea themselves seeps in. It doesn't take long watching Mr. Smith's videos to know that he is the farthest thing from a scam artist. I'd gladly follow him off a cliff before some others I have seen. I wish him the best on this one.

Now to get some gotoluc flyback spikes into these things and we are off to mars ;D

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 07:53:55 PM
He made what I would consider a bizarre statement even though I am just a lay person relative to his graphene based battery research.   He says something about the test being done with a simple water based electrolyte but if he had the proper electrolyte he would get a higher voltage and "much more" out of his test cell.  Really?  Just changing the electrolyte means you can now extract more energy from the chemical compounds?   It sounds fishy to me.

In a semi related manner, Sunvault Energy and Edison Power are supposedly going to show an "electric supercar" within four months based on the batteries and caps etc.  If you do a little digging, the claims on the car are ridiculous and are being completely trashed by both technical people and by the investment community.  It casts a very long and dubious shadow over their "electric supercar" pitch and the two companies themselves.  Robert is on the board of directors of Sunvault Energy.  Sunvault Energy company is a typical penny stock company with big claims and not much to show for it.  Don't hold your breath for the supercar.

Nobody has spotted the main issue, but one person is a little bit warm.   In the comments on the YouTbe clip, not a single person has mentioned it either.  It's almost shocking, like sheep being led off to slaughter.

I'd follow RMS before you MH. No offence but RMS has been very generous with his time and info over the years and always up front whilst encouraging others. Not a slight on you but rigorous support for this bloke. To cast aspersions anonymously says more about you than him. I don't about over there but over here 0.62 is not a penny stock. They are 152% up on the year so I think their investors would be very happy.

I am the worlds biggest skeptic and I don't believe anything until I personally see and touch it (and then I am still skeptical).  I have a lot of respect for Dr Robert Murray Smith, and as I also said, I have replicated a lot of his demonstrations, except when he keeps them secret (and the green, black and electrolyte compounds are secret). In Canada where Sunvault is registered you have one year to file for a patent. The law is similar to the US but they also have a first to file law, so I appreciate everything he posts prior to filing a patent. 

Many here are also healthy skeptics and I agree that the results look a little too amazing.  I would recommend one thing. I posted a quick and easy method to make a supercapacitor  the other day.  OK mine are not as good as Dr Smith for various reasons, (he knows what he is doing and I just copy/augment what others are doing) but the results are still crazy. http://overunity.com/13177/amazing-graphene-super-capacitor/msg466741/#msg466741 

I totally agree these are just bench test results and may not be representative of what is obtainable in production, and I would love to see some scientific reviews of his work in a controlled environment to validate his projected performance, but so far everything looks above water.  As I said, I never get scammed by anyone and I don't believe Robert is out to scam anyone either. The reason he took the job as a director for Sunvault I  believe, was simply out of frustration from not being able to move graphene technology forward.

So if others don't believe the result are as good as he says they are, then lets put them to the test.  He is not claiming overunity or unicorns and pixi dust. All he is claiming is he has developed a graphene  supercapacitor that performs like a battery with a higher power to weight ratio than a lithium ion battery. What he is claiming is not unique and there are dozens of peer reviewed articles on various methods to make supercapacitors, he just believes his is a little more efficient than others and he also has the backing of a company who just may manage to bring this into production. 

Quote from: Jimboot on November 29, 2015, 09:26:19 PM
I'd follow RMS before you MH. No offence but RMS has been very generous with his time and info over the years and always up front whilst encouraging others. Not a slight on you but rigorous support for this bloke. To cast aspersions anonymously says more about you than him. I don't about over there but over here 0.62 is not a penny stock. They are 152% up on the year so I think their investors would be very happy.

This guy is putting himself out there and presumably thousands of people have expressed their opinions anonymously about the two companies he is affiliated with.  That's the way it works.  I seriously doubt the investors are "happy" when apparently nothing tangible has been delivered from Sunvault Energy after four years and the latest pitch is an "electric supercar" that is likely never to be delivered by the end of Q1 2016 - if ever.  Pitching an "electric supercar" falls right in line with companies that pitch a turn-key product that supposedly incorporates their technology instead of pitching their technology itself and letting it stand alone on its own merits.  This is like Bill Alek pitching an "electric bicycle that never needs recharging" from two years ago that never happened when what he was really supposed to be pitching was a "magic switching and phasing device" that produced free energy.

Just because you come off as a "nice guy" doesn't mean that what you present is considered good data without having to look at it.  He makes a glaring error, it's so bad that if you were emotionally invested in his company and had a lot of money tied up in it then you would be extremely upset.

Going a bit further back, he makes big claims about his credit card sized capacitor being 2000 farads but he presents no data at all to back up the claim.  I don't believe it, and he would have to prove it.  However, taking into account this latest clip who knows if he can really prove it or not.  If you are researching capacitors you are supposed to know your stuff.

Then there was a clip where he is proud of himself for "tap charging" one of his prototype capacitors.  He makes another serious technical mistake.

I told him several times on YouTube that he needs to make credible measurements of the size of his capacitor and he balked.  I told him that he made a mistake with the "tap charging" and he balked at that also.  Perhaps that's why he is allegedly showing some test data for the EESD.  He dismissed the idea of showing test data for his capacitors and as anyone can see from the comments on his EESD clip people are very enthusiastic that he did do some testing - allegedly.

Coming back to this EESD, he makes a godawful mistake in this clip under discussion.  If almost nobody can figure it out between the YouTube comments, and contributors to this forum, then it just shows you how easy it is to pull the wool over people's eyes.  Hence, looking at other players, between Inteligentry and Hydro Energy Revolution about three million dollars worth of people's investment money was poured down the drain.  I am not equating these companies with Sunvault Energy or Edison Power, I am just illustrating how you have to be aware of what is going on.  People doing research have to demonstrate competency and if they don't then red flags need to be raised.

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 10:36:27 PM
This guy is putting himself out there...

No risk, no reward...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHWDdpYc9v0

I noticed a couple places where he said the values was .01 when the meter clearly showed .08 but I could care less since he said he wasn't trying to be super accurate in that presentation.

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 10:36:27 PM
...
I told him several times on YouTube that he needs to make credible measurements of the size of his capacitor and he balked.
...

I noticed a troll on one of his videos hounding him about test data to which he apparently deleted his replies to. Anyone we know ;)

Quote from: MagnaProp on November 29, 2015, 11:22:46 PM
I noticed a troll on one of his videos hounding him about test data to which he apparently deleted his replies to. Anyone we know ;)

You can kiss my ass because I am no troll.  He deleted his replies because he realized that he was making himself look like a fool.  The request was 100% legitimate but you apparently want to be comfortably numb.  Go invest in Inteligentry and Hydro Energy Revolution then and don't ask any questions.  Asking questions makes you a bad person and a troll.  You are supposed to enforce not asking questions and tow the party line.  Ignore the huge mistake in the measurements that make the clip a farce.  That makes you a good party member in good standing.

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 11:51:38 PM
You can kiss my ass because I am no troll.  He deleted his replies because he realized that he was making himself look like a fool.  The request was 100% legitimate but you apparently want to be comfortably numb.  Go invest in Inteligentry and Hydro Energy Revolution then and don't ask any questions.  Asking questions makes you a bad person and a troll.  You are supposed to enforce not asking questions and tow the party line.  That makes you a good party member in good standing.

aaah so you're that guy... the commenter that RMS rejected. LOL He did a bunch of vids saying he would delete your comments if you were rude or obnoxious. hopefully you weren't  :D

Quote from: Jimboot on November 29, 2015, 11:56:27 PM
aaah so you're that guy... the commenter that RMS rejected. LOL He did a bunch of vids saying he would delete your comments if you were rude or obnoxious. hopefully you weren't  :D

What are you LOLing about?  And, no, I was not rude or obnoxious.  I asked him about measurements and he balked and then deleted my comments on his two clips where I raised the issue.

RMS got rude and obnoxious on LaserSaber's clip and then deleted all his comments.

So what are we looking at here?  Two people that don't want to see measurements and object to requests for measurements and don't want to know why the clip under discussion has a catastrophic error?

Quote from: MileHigh on November 30, 2015, 12:05:04 AM
What are you LOLing about?  And, no, I was not rude or obnoxious.  I asked him about measurements and he balked and then deleted my comments on his two clips where I raised the issue.

RMS got rude and obnoxious on LaserSaber's clip and then deleted all his comments.

So what are we looking at here?  Two people that don't want to see measurements and object to requests for measurements and don't want to know why the clip under discussion has a catastrophic error?

Two people? Now I'm not following you. Also I don't have time (nor probably the pay grade) to "play spot the error" with you. Why the guessing game?

This is a forum about research into energy and if you can't spot a glaring error in a clip like being discussed it shows how easy it is to deceive people.  It's to make people think twice about any clip they watch.

Quoting myself:

QuoteA Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads.

Did RMS really make a 2000 farad capacitor the size of a credit card?  Show me the data because right now I don't believe it.

Quote from: MileHigh on November 30, 2015, 12:18:21 AM
This is a forum about research into energy and if you can't spot a glaring error in a clip like being discussed it shows how easy it is to deceive people.  It's to make people think twice about any clip they watch.

Quoting myself:
Did RMS really make a 2000 farad capacitor the size of a credit card?  Show me the data because right now I don't believe it.

oh so you're teaching? Cool. Cos it read like you were accusing someone of being dishonest.

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 11:51:38 PM
...I am no troll...

Sorry if I offended. I don't know who it was and I suspect we may never know :)

He stated in his video that he wasn't trying to be super accurate. I also don't know if the part where he misstates the measurements seen on the meters was narrated at a later time, causing the misstatement. He was very liberal in his measurements saying that even if the lithium battery was twice what he calculated, his device would still blow it out the water. So his math is irrelevant to me in that his device either does as claimed or it doesn't which we'll find out soon enough it sounds like.

Another reason for letting his measurements slide is that I'm personally not to impressed with "experts" that scrutinize every detail ever since I had ex NASA people hound me on a flying project I did. I confirmed that they had in fact worked for NASA in the past. They said I couldn't build it and yet it flew a few weeks later. I am far from a genius but that's why I let the measurements in your video slide. That and me and math don't get along at all. I got into calculus where the teacher started telling us how imaginary numbers get infinitely close to 0 but never quite got there. Well "i" got infinitely close to passing the class but never quite got there ;D

Quote from: MileHigh on November 30, 2015, 12:18:21 AM
...Did RMS really make a 2000 farad capacitor the size of a credit card?  Show me the data because right now I don't believe it.

As I recall Tinmans Trifene cap was around 2600 and looked smaller than the RMS device so it seems plausible to me.

Quote from: MagnaProp on November 30, 2015, 12:53:59 AM
As I recall Tinmans Trifene cap was around 2600 and looked smaller than the RMS device so it seems plausible to me.

Apology accepted and Tinman is in the same boat for the capacitors as far as I am concerned.  I looked at one of his capacitor clips, I think that it may have been the clip where he claims 2600 farads.  He just makes the claim without showing any measurements, almost as if the claim was plucked out of thin air.  Where is his number coming from?  I posted on his YT clip and he didn't reply.

He mentions a certain amount of time was required to charge his capacitor or he shows it in the clip.  Let's say it was three minutes, I don't recall exactly.  I did a very rough calculation and concluded that for three minutes the average charging power provided by his bench power supply wold have to be something like 20 watts to charge the supercap to the final voltage.  Just from eyeballing the clip, I did not get a sense at all that the charging power was that high.  Of course this is all subjective on my part but I have a decent sense for things like this.

It all comes back to being honest with yourself and doing your own due diligence and making honest credible measurements on your creations for your own satisfaction.  It can be an amateur experimenter or a semi-pro or a pro, it doesn't matter.  If you are going to make your own capacitor or your own battery then the spirit of this forum is to share your results and that includes measurements done to the best of your ability, especially if you are making a claim that borders on extraordinary.

If you don't do that then there is no difference from you as an honest experimenter and someone like one of the infamous Rohner brothers.  They have both been pitching their silly "PAP engine" variations for going on 20 years and they have never done measurements that I am aware of.

Can you really make a better capacitor than a giant company that has been in the business of making capacitors for 60 years and has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of manufacturing equipment and a team of 100 design, manufacturing, and test engineers?  The short answer is yes you can.  The catch is you have to prove it to yourself and to your peers by showing credible measurements.  You can't "sleepwalk" though things like this, you have to be honest with yourself for a start.

who my good buddy MICROMLOW is a troll not.but for you microm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJUWCRq-sCk

Quote from: MileHigh on November 30, 2015, 12:18:21 AM
Did RMS really make a 2000 farad capacitor the size of a credit card?  Show me the data because right now I don't believe it.

Milehigh I appreciate your skepticism. Maybe you need to build a team who can officially request one of his creditcard supercapacitors and calculate actual Farad. I am sure we can come up with an agreed and calibrated test method to validate the claim. Any suggestions on an accurate test method (or a method accurate enough to meet your needs - measure charge time | discharge time with a known load that is calibrated with a commercial cap that's 2000 Farads). 

Quote from: MagnaProp on November 29, 2015, 11:22:46 PM
I noticed a couple places where he said the values was .01 when the meter clearly showed .08 but I could care less since he said he wasn't trying to be super accurate in that presentation.

Not sure where you are referring to.  He did say .01g on the scales when it read .08 but I think everyone watching realized he was doing the math in his head.  First he weighed the paper (he did not zero out the scale with paper on it) .07g then he weighed negative material .075g but he read .005 on the scale subtracting in his head,  Finally he weighed the active material and the scale read .08 so he said .01g of material. 

Quote from: Nink on November 30, 2015, 08:30:09 AM
Milehigh I appreciate your skepticism. Maybe you need to build a team who can officially request one of his creditcard supercapacitors and calculate actual Farad. I am sure we can come up with an agreed and calibrated test method to validate the claim. Any suggestions on an accurate test method (or a method accurate enough to meet your needs - measure charge time | discharge time with a known load that is calibrated with a commercial cap that's 2000 Farads). 

There is no need for a team to do this.  Also, the person building the device, whether it be a supercapacitor or a battery, should be able to make measurements and demonstrate competence in what they are doing.  There is no need for hand-holding here.

The weighing of the materials was problematic because there was so little available and the measurements were at the extreme lower limit of the resolution of the digital scale.  That could have been improved upon by weighing 10 times the amount of material for both cases.  However, I am not concerned about that, it's just quibbling relative to another issue.

There is an elephant in the room that makes other debatable aspects of the clip pale by comparison.

MileHigh

I feel MH. is a bit out of order with RMS.
If there's a serious error don't play games.
I'm sure RMS. would be happy to discuss
things if they were addressed in the proper
manner.
Riddles won't get anyone anywhere!

MH, do not lump John P Rohner in with Bob Rohner; they are completely different.
I have found Bob to be honest and open; John is a different beast.

MileHigh I am guessing you are basically saying in a round about way,  show me the independent test data. Maybe not as stringent as UL/CSA certification etc as it still in prototype but something from a recognized independent testing organization.

Quote from: Nink on November 30, 2015, 12:24:58 PM
MileHigh I am guessing you are basically saying in a round about way,  show me the independent test data. Maybe not as stringent as UL/CSA certification etc as it still in prototype but something from a recognized independent testing organization.

I believe he is saying that the test data is available right there in the video clip, but is misrepresented.



If I am right, looking at the graph shown from 17:36 onwards (I drew a more accurate version on my desktop) we can extrapolate that his EESd will be out of juice at about 290 seconds. RMS wanted a straight line graph, so that is what I used.


So wouldn't we have to apply the same criteria (out of juice at about 290 seconds) to the LiIon battery also.
1150 mAh / 290 * 60 * 60 / 26 (cells)
So the effect of each cell would be 549 mAh per cell that fully discharges in 290 seconds.

And at 0.455g per cell that would be 1206 Ah/Kg.

So he has misrepresented the competition by a factor of 12.
It would also COMPLETELY turn  claim around.

In conclusion, the competition Knocks the socks off his device. (his was 697 Ah/Kg)



Edited :

I am not liking the sound of that.
How can one out of 26 cell contain half the total capacity.

Please ignore the above calculation.
I will leave it there just to show what an Electronics novice comes up with when he is not a subject matter expert.

Sorry.
Pete

OK I hear what you are saying Pete.  His cell was burnt out in 290 seconds where the Li Ion cell will last 1 hour at 44mA.  At 5min 13 seconds the cell drops below 44mA so subtract the 3 minute charging time it really hit 44mA/h in just 2min and 13 seconds or 1/27th of an hour.   His EESD does drop fairly consistently example 4min 7 seconds it is at 94mA.    So lets assume straight line and for the 2m 13s it was running an average of 111mAh. 

I guess the basic assumption he is making is if we had charged it for 30 min and not 3  it would start at 1780mA not 178mA.   I am not sure this is the case. 
So do we need ~ 10 * the number of Graphene cells to Li Ion cells?

Edit:

That is if we are just looking at mAh but we really need to take into account volts as well.  We start at 2.7V but quickly drop to 1.5V and by 5:13 seconds we are at .5V  Now I am not sure what he said about the Li Ion Battery. I think he said it is a 1.5V 1150mAh battery at video time stamp 2m 35s and I assume they are all wired in parallel as he divided by 26 cells when he calculated amps / cell so each cell would be 1.5V. 

I guess we need to plot this all out in a spread sheet .....

Well thank you for trying to figure out the issue but nobody got it.

The problem with the clip is that RMS fails to calculate the equivalent ampere-hours in his test cell.  Ampere-hours is a nomenclature that is used to make comparisons between batteries of the same voltage.  Ampere-hours is a shorthand way of expressing the energy in a battery where you ignore the battery output voltage because it is implicit and understood to be the same.   It can be used when stating the battery energy capacity or when comparing the battery energy capacity between two batteries with the same output voltage.

So, suppose that you are comparing two batteries where one battery outputs 10 volts and the other battery outputs 5 volts and you are going to stick to using the term ampere-hours.  What do you have to do?

The answer is that you have to double the ampere-hours of the 5-volt battery to represent the equivalent amount of energy.

100 ampere-hours @10V = 200 ampere-hours @5V

The lithium-ion cell phone battery has a nominal output voltage of 3.8 volts.

When he starts the test his cell is outputting about 1.63 volts and when he finishes his test his cell is outputting about 0.36 volts.

When he starts his test his equivalent ampere-hour measurement is exaggerated by (3.8/1.63) = 230%
When he ends his test his equivalent ampere-hour measurement is exaggerated by (3.8/0.36) = 1055%

This is simply unacceptable for a man in his position.  He has made other glaring errors that I already mentioned.  So he is either ignorant or he knows what he is doing but he has other motivations.  That is an unknown and people can decide for themselves.

The clip is wrong wrong wrong and his data is pure junk and his smug conclusion at the end of his clip is pure junk.  It's a farce.

If I really cared about his project, which I don't, I would be extremely upset.

MileHigh

Quote from: Nink on November 30, 2015, 02:54:23 PM
Edit:

That is if we are just looking at mAh but we really need to take into account volts as well.  We start at 2.7V but quickly drop to 1.5V and by 5:13 seconds we are at .5V  Now I am not sure what he said about the Li Ion Battery. I think he said it is a 1.5V 1150mAh battery at video time stamp 2m 35s and I assume they are all wired in parallel as he divided by 26 cells when he calculated amps / cell so each cell would be 1.5V. 

I guess we need to plot this all out in a spread sheet .....

Yes Nink, you are definitely on the right track here.  I believe that a lithium-ion battery has a nearly constant output voltage over its discharge cycle.  Ironically RMS even mentions this in his clip.  All that he really had to do was take voltage and current measurements say every 10 seconds over the 240 seconds of the test to get a handle on the energy capacity of his cell.  He could then convert it into equivalent ampere-hours @3.8V to make a fair comparison with the lithium-ion battery. 

But he didn't, and it's such a glaring and godawful mistake that my jaw dropped when I watched the clip.  And this is a guy that works in a "high capacity" technical position in a capacitor and battery company.

MileHigh

MileHigh   
His average over time charted were .76V and .72mA  and Li Ion I googled appears to be 3.6V avg per cell and I used his 44mA calc so  EESD 73 versus Li Ion 158

What stands out for me is the assumption you can charge this linearly to a higher V / mA per cell than he did.  I will be honest 2.6V is the most I ever got from my cells and RMS cell dropped to 1.69V as soon as he put a load on it. 

I think PIH123 (Pete) also nailed it.  This test was for only 4 minutes.  We should really be testing for 1 hour and we can't just extrapolate this out. It appears EESD will need a lot more cells to produce same mAh.

I put the data here if people want to graph or check
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit?usp=sharing

Added A graph

Quote from: Nink on November 30, 2015, 08:13:23 PM
I think PIH123 (Pete) also nailed it.

I might have been accidentally close, but in all honesty, the dog ate my homework.  :-[

   Looks as if another one bites the dust!!!!

And yet another one bites the dust!

Build something better MH. Oh that's right you don't build, you tear down. I can't comment on your calculations, what I would say is that I'd trust a man who gives freely and generously of his time rather than one who seemingly spend all his time criticising others work and does none himself.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 01, 2015, 11:08:15 PM
Build something better MH. Oh that's right you don't build, you tear down. I can't comment on your calculations, what I would say is that I'd trust a man who gives freely and generously of his time rather than one who seemingly spend all his time criticising others work and does none himself.

Bullshit.  If you can't understand the concept of ampere-hours and how they implicitly are tied into an associated voltage then you may as well pack it all in right now.  If you can't understand how to measure how much energy a battery can output into a load you may as well pack it all in right now.

But I don't believe that you don't understand that, because if you don't understand that then you don't understand volts x current x time = energy.  If you don't understand that then you can't perform a single experiment.  You are FOS and playing dumb because you feel some strange compulsion to not dare say the guy is dead wrong because you are scared of speaking the truth.  So you would rather act the fool because you think that's safer.  If you had any damn courage and strength of character you would also say the guy is dead wrong because you damn well know he is dead wrong.  So right now you are just his lackey and playing the fool.  It's a super fail.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 01, 2015, 11:19:57 PM
Bullshit.  If you can't understand the concept of ampere-hours and how they implicitly are tied into an associated voltage then you may as well pack it all in right now.  If you can't understand how to measure how much energy a battery can output into a load you may as well pack it all in right now.

But I don't believe that you don't understand that, because if you don't understand that then you don't understand volts x current x time = energy.  If you don't understand that then you can't perform a single experiment.  You are FOS and playing dumb because you feel some strange compulsion to not dare say the guy is dead wrong because you are scared of speaking the truth.  So you would rather act the fool because you think that's safer.  If you had any damn courage and strength of character you would also say the guy is dead wrong because you damn well know he is dead wrong.  So right now you are just his lackey and playing the fool.  It's a super fail.

. you on the other hand have super powers and can read ppl minds, you probably don't understand but posts like that are often why you are referred to as a troll

Quote from: Jimboot on December 01, 2015, 11:08:15 PM
Build something better MH. Oh that's right you don't build, you tear down. I can't comment on your calculations, what I would say is that I'd trust a man who gives freely and generously of his time rather than one who seemingly spend all his time criticising others work and does none himself.

Jim
MH is correct.
I too like RMS and all he has done,but when it come's down to it,he(RMS) is just wrong on this one. His calculations are way out to lunch.

The thing is,he has totally forgot about the voltage-->there is no power with current alone.
So some quick and dirty calculations from his clip.
I see the average current over that 4 minutes of his EESD as being about 74mA,and an average voltage of around .94 volt's<--and this is taking into account that very quick 1.5 voltas at the start that dropped to 1.4 in about a second. So over that 4 minutes we had around 69.5mW of power flowing. Now,if we average that over an hour,we would have 69.5mW/15 =4.63 mWh <--can i do it this way MH,PW ?

Now if we look at the Li Ion battery. RMS states that it is an 1.1 amp hour battery=or something close to that. The voltage of those batteries is around 3.6v. Now,because we dont have a discharge time or current for that battery,we cant be to accurate with the amp hour discharge rate. But we can safely assume that it will be higher than the 74mA average that RMS discharged his cap at. So now we can calculate the power output over time for that Li Ion battery.
This will be 3.6 volts @ 74mA=266.4mW. Going by battery specs at the 1.1 amp hour rating,and the fact that we are only drawing 74mA,we could expect to draw that much power for around 14.8 hours.

So we have RMS EESD providing 4.63mWh for 1 hour,and the LI Ion providing 266.4 mW for say 14 hours. So for 1 hour,RMS EESD only provides 1.73% of that of the Li Ion battery-->over the 14 hours that is only .12% of the energy the LI Ion battery could supply.
Things dont look so good now.

Edit: In saying all this,i have to admit that the capacity per weight volume is still very good.
Please see my next post

OK,so here is some scientific info for you MH ;)

Watching the video ,and taking note of time,volts and current shown on RMS's video,and after many tests using different size capacitors,i can achieve the same discharge curve as RMS shows with his EESD by using a 25 farad cap discharging over a 10 ohm resistor. The voltage and current drop over the given time are within a micky wisker of each other. So it would seem that RMS's EESD capacity is very close to 25 farads. The thing i dont know is to what voltage RMS's EESD can be charged to,where as the 25 farad cap can be charged to 2.7 volt's. At 1.5 volts,the 25 farad cap will store 28.125 joules of energy,but at 2.7 volts,it will store 91.125 joules of energy.

The other differences are
1-my 25 farad cap weighs some 16 times that of the EESD in total,
2-the super cap would be a lot more expensive to buy,than it would be to make the EESD.
3-If the EESD were lifted to the weight volume of that of the super cap-->in other words,we would have 16 of his EESD's charged to 1.5 volts,then the capacity would exceed that of the super cap by a factor 5x-or very close to,when the super cap was charged to the full 2.7 volts.

So regardless of the mistakes you and i picked up on,it would still seems that the EESD exceeds todays super caps per weight volume by a factor of 5.
So now what?.

Things we still need to know
1-Cycle life of the EESD
2-safety issue's-like,will they catch fire if the load is too heavy :D
3-how fast can they be charged before heat destroys them.


Brad

Quote from: Jimboot on December 02, 2015, 12:30:29 AM
. you on the other hand have super powers and can read ppl minds, you probably don't understand but posts like that are often why you are referred to as a troll

You don't have the guts or character to admit that you are wrong when it is as plain as day.  And you damn well know that I know what I am talking about and if I make a mistake I will freely admit it.  Then you play a silly straw man game.  You are clearly the one that is trolling me.

Quote from: Nink on November 30, 2015, 08:13:23 PM
MileHigh   
His average over time charted were .76V and .72mA  and Li Ion I googled appears to be 3.6V avg per cell and I used his 44mA calc so  EESD 73 versus Li Ion 158

What stands out for me is the assumption you can charge this linearly to a higher V / mA per cell than he did.  I will be honest 2.6V is the most I ever got from my cells and RMS cell dropped to 1.69V as soon as he put a load on it. 

I think PIH123 (Pete) also nailed it.  This test was for only 4 minutes.  We should really be testing for 1 hour and we can't just extrapolate this out. It appears EESD will need a lot more cells to produce same mAh.

I put the data here if people want to graph or check
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit?usp=sharing)

Added A graph

Nink and Phil:

Please don't miss the forest for the trees.  The clip is clearly a total fail on the measurement side of things.  Therefore for me personally there is no point in really digging deeper into it.  It's more like the slate should be wiped clean and RMS should start over.  At least that's what I would do if I was in his shoes.  I am going to make some more technical comments to Brad for you to have a look at, but not too much.

MileHigh

Quote from: tinman on December 02, 2015, 04:18:23 AM
OK,so here is some scientific info for you MH ;)

Watching the video ,and taking note of time,volts and current shown on RMS's video,and after many tests using different size capacitors,i can achieve the same discharge curve as RMS shows with his EESD by using a 25 farad cap discharging over a 10 ohm resistor. The voltage and current drop over the given time are within a micky wisker of each other. So it would seem that RMS's EESD capacity is very close to 25 farads. The thing i dont know is to what voltage RMS's EESD can be charged to,where as the 25 farad cap can be charged to 2.7 volt's. At 1.5 volts,the 25 farad cap will store 28.125 joules of energy,but at 2.7 volts,it will store 91.125 joules of energy.

Brad:

Like I just posted I am only going to make some limited technical points to you because the situation is so bad, he really should start over and try to make a credible measurement.

For starters, RMS's response to your comments to him about the problem are not confidence-inspiring:

Quote+TinManPower ok mate - thanks - but i didn't miss it - i just didn't highlight it as we were looking at capacity - but i take on board what you are saying

+TinManPower I was thinking about the voltage issue - but we are looking at electrolyte change i think to resolve that problem - i was thinking of organic carbonates - essentially as long as the capacity is there - we can do something about it - but that's just the way i see it

In fact the comments are bogus.  The man totally failed to make a measurement of the energy output of his device.  "Capacity" means "energy capacity."

For what it's worth, here is what I said to him about a day ago:

Quote+Robert Murray-Smith One more time Robert you have a serious serious problem in one of your clips.  Your measurement of your device in the clip "A Perspective On The B Type EESD" is completely out of whack. It's so bad that it is shocking.  I suggest that you review what you did, take down the clip, issue an apology clip, and then redo the test properly in a new clip.

He did not reply.

For making a ballpark measurement of the energy output of his device, it is an "RMS" thing, root mean square.  It's not the averages of the voltage and the current.

I can't be bothered myself, but here is how I would do it for his clip:  He makes a measurement over 240 seconds, 4 minutes.  You can just do manual integration on his multimeter data.  The test starts, you wait five seconds, and you note the voltage and the current.  You do that at 5 seconds, 15 seconds, 25 seconds, etc.  You will get an integration number for the energy output where every slice is 10 seconds wide.  That will be reasonably accurate.

Important technical note:  You can take every slice above and convert it into an "equivalent amp-10-seconds at 3.8 volts" if you want to.  Then add up all of the amp-10-second rectangles to get the total @ 3.8 equivalent volts over an integration time of four minutes.  To convert that into "real amp hours" you then have to spread out that four minutes of data over one hour.  That means you take your accumulated data over four minutes of data and divide by fifteen to get the real equivalent amp-hours @ 3.8 volts.

Then as a bare minimum you have to look at the error tolerance in his weight measurement for the active materials for his own device.  For one material he measures 0.070 grams for the bare paper.  Then he measures 0.075 grams with the paper and the material.  So let's say that is a +/- 20% error tolerance.  The measurements for the second material are 0.070 grams and 0.080.  So let's say that's a +/- 10% error tolerance.  He would have been much better off measuring both at the same time.  Let's just say the overall error tolerance is 25% for the weighing of the materials.

So, he probably has over measured the energy output from his cell by something like 5x to 8x.  Then throw in the 25% error  tolerance for the measurement of the weight of the active materials in his device and you can see that RMS has proven nothing.  He has not by any stretch of the imagination proven that his active materials have a higher energy density by weight than the active materials in a lithium-ion battery.

The clip should be deleted and he should start over.

MileHigh

93:

You need to go play with Seychelles.

Quote from: tinman on December 02, 2015, 01:38:46 AM
Jim
MH is correct.
I too like RMS and all he has done,but when it come's down to it,he(RMS) is just wrong on this one. His calculations are way out to lunch.

The thing is,he has totally forgot about the voltage-->there is no power with current alone.
So some quick and dirty calculations from his clip.
I see the average current over that 4 minutes of his EESD as being about 74mA,and an average voltage of around .94 volt's<--and this is taking into account that very quick 1.5 voltas at the start that dropped to 1.4 in about a second. So over that 4 minutes we had around 69.5mW of power flowing. Now,if we average that over an hour,we would have 69.5mW/15 =4.63 mWh <--can i do it this way MH,PW ?

Now if we look at the Li Ion battery. RMS states that it is an 1.1 amp hour battery=or something close to that. The voltage of those batteries is around 3.6v. Now,because we dont have a discharge time or current for that battery,we cant be to accurate with the amp hour discharge rate. But we can safely assume that it will be higher than the 74mA average that RMS discharged his cap at. So now we can calculate the power output over time for that Li Ion battery.
This will be 3.6 volts @ 74mA=266.4mW. Going by battery specs at the 1.1 amp hour rating,and the fact that we are only drawing 74mA,we could expect to draw that much power for around 14.8 hours.

So we have RMS EESD providing 4.63mWh for 1 hour,and the LI Ion providing 266.4 mW for say 14 hours. So for 1 hour,RMS EESD only provides 1.73% of that of the Li Ion battery-->over the 14 hours that is only .12% of the energy the LI Ion battery could supply.
Things dont look so good now.

Edit: In saying all this,i have to admit that the capacity per weight volume is still very good.
Please see my next post

I did not question mh calculations.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 02, 2015, 05:29:58 AM
You don't have the guts or character to admit that you are wrong when it is as plain as day.  And you damn well know that I know what I am talking about and if I make a mistake I will freely admit it.  Then you play a silly straw man game.  You are clearly the one that is trolling me.

I have made no claims. I simply object to the way you tear people down and asassinate their character because they made an error. And as he said all through the video the numbers don't matter because the numbers are still amazing.


Why not just point out the mistake as Brad has done and then let's get on with it. I don't object to your knowledge, just the way you deliver it sometimes.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 02, 2015, 07:08:25 AM
I have made no claims. I simply object to the way you tear people down and asassinate their character because they made an error. And as he said all through the video the numbers don't matter because the numbers are still amazing.


Why not just point out the mistake as Brad has done and then let's get on with it. I don't object to your knowledge, just the way you deliver it sometimes.

This is true MH,and i am probably guilty of it my self some time's. But where as i may play a quick chorus,you punch out the whole tune.

The fact is,that now i have used a known value capacitor,and started with a known voltage across that capacitor before the start of the test,and a known voltage across that capacitor at the end of the test,we can then calculate how much energy was delivered to the load,or how much power was dissipated by that load. As the discharge voltage and current values were much the same as what RMS showed with his EESD,then it is safe to assume that we are within the ball park of calculating  the energy  his EESD delivered to the load. When we do it this way,there is no need for time interval measurements.

There is also the fact that ! regardless of the +/- 10% !(and remember, it could be the minus just as much as it could be the plus),the weight/volume ratio of the EESD to that of the super cap for energy storage is still 4x+ in favor of the EESD. As i used a controlled experiment that represented his values over time(or very very close to),then that is hard to argue against.

Brad.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 02, 2015, 06:58:54 AM
I did not question mh calculations.

Sorry Jim,i didnt read far enough back to see what happened over a few posts. MH has this nack to make it sound like you are arguing over the measurements.
Quote:
You don't have the guts or character to admit that you are wrong when it is as plain as day.  And you damn well know that I know what I am talking about and if I make a mistake I will freely admit it.

-->!! That'll learn me !! :D

Brad

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 02, 2015, 06:37:26 AM
Mile high said , If you can't understand how to measure how much energy a battery can output into a load you may as well pack it all in right now. hahahah than mile high you need to pack it all in to a very low resistant load ... If the battery was 12 v than it fastest delivery time is 12 seconds but that is a battery not a capacitor. SO if the battery super exceeds that time than harmonic response of the material that makes up the load is contributing by means of EMF resonance. Each proton has a static charge that protects it from the electron fields. This static field can pick up oscillations from the quark field by the harmonics of 5ths..   

The cells must there for play a contribution to the input of energy to gain a sustain over the time the load is receiving its charge ! But these types of cells are super sensitive and could pick up 5ths from its environment ... A piano does this and there for is a very basic free energy system but its not an OU technology...

Each proton is 1kw of pure energy and you can take from it a tiny percentage of that energy and when you switch the load off it will recharge it self......... Now is that not what is almost happening here ??? hahahah wow ! Its ok the life cycle of a proton is 36 billion years but that is depending on when it was first constructed ! Let alone if it has been through more than say 10 000 super nova's or picks up a constant from the plank level or is drip feed from the radiation leaking from a star or black hole....


But lets take another look at electrons ! They are spinning at there event horizon at 5.5 million MPH and will be influenced to rise by green light ! Not forgetting that a single electron has the same square of charge to that of its proton . So the electron it self hold quite a punch and will also re charge from the ambient. How much energy was you thinking of releasing >  ?  <  ... In one tiny tea spoon of water is equal to one atomic bomb dropped on japan ... And for anyone who knows this all ways exspect there will be many ways to tap into free energy. The man has not made any error and obviously knows what he is doing and he is honest so if there is error and I cant see it than state it in the manor it is presented.

Always remember at the point of contact there is resonance ! and where there is resonance there is a possibility for an extension of unity but never ever over unity ............... sorry .!




   





   






   

93rd
What are you smoking?

Guys, please lets not throw RMS under the bus.  We all get excited about our own inventions and do not take as critical a view on our own as we would of others (no one has an ugly baby). I did point out to RMS in a positive way the need to include all the data and he was very open in his response.  See top comment on his video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM

My Post.
"Assuming you can coat this multiple times and it will increase 1g & 178 mA every time you dip, and drop at the same rate, and your peak charge is 1.69V per g (Started at 2.7 but dropped to 1.69V when load attached, you need 33 coats of your product to = the coat of Li-Ion. so your total weight is EESD .33g compared to Li-Ion .455g. I am not overly confident it will scale this much (need to demonstrate) so you may need multiple EESD cells to every Li-Ion and take into account weight of substrate and separators in calcs. Data is here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit?usp=sharing"

RMS Response.
"I am not sure it will scale that way exactly either mate - so the very next thing we need to do is a scaled version - which is what i am working on right now - nice spreadsheet incidentally"

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 02, 2015, 08:31:51 AM
I am right ...... Its the most important thing to learn in free energy and there is no OVER UNITY ... JUST FREE ENERGY..!

In this case with the cells there is something going on that is of interest but it does not calculate to what people want it to ... ........ Now how does that happen ?

The other way is with a negative charge into a small set of capacitors via a 22 watt transformer that has been swiped with a ferrite magnet ........ You tap the transformer at the primary coil yet you connect the capacitors to the secondary coil and you may need to use just one diode ............. To confirm your negative charge into the capacitor connect it to the battery and it will blow up hahahahah

Quote... Now the battery trick hahahah the battery can just charge its self up every time ! Its secret is in how you discharge it ......... 12V AT A 1 AMP hour limit has a maximum 12 second discharge rate ! A second is in fact an imperial number and not a metric number and all imperial numbers are harmonic ......... Its the law of nature and all electrical energy belongs to it !

Now see here hahahahahahaha,this is where you are going belly up like many others,in not knowing the difference between a surface charge and a deep charge when it comes to batteries.

QuoteThe thing is you guys don't know what a 5th is and that is why you are not getting anywhere !

The opposite is actually true. Most of my friends normally end up with a 5th of what they had when the wife up and leaves. It was the removal of the 4/5th of what they had that now has them going no where :D

QuoteMile high is searching for any way he can to find a loop on his pancake coils but there the wrong coils hahahahha

What are you talking about hahahaha ?

QuoteThere is so much free energy in the most basic of systems I cant begin to calculate it . All you have to go on is youtube and historic data and a lot of miss adventures in the field

Or go and buy a solar panel.

QuoteI see no error in this mans work ! He has discharged into a system yet he finds he still has volts

We also see he did not fully discharge the cell.

QuoteOk and these volts at first seem to have no power but give it a few hours and the batteries will have some amps back

Well that dose not make much sense,but are you referring to recovery energy,where the chemicals in the battery cool,and the heat is converted into a small amount of energy that is then once again stored in the battery?. Some of the chemical energy is converted into heat energy when current is drawn from the battery,and when the chemicals cool,the heat energy is returned as chemical energy.

QuoteAlso leave the battery drain out but the volts will still show as normal or at least half the volts you started with and it will pull up the amps but if you add your negative cap to the negative of the battery the battery will charge to normal hahahahha

No need to charge a battery ever again hahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaha !
I told you I don't do drugs !

Are you sure hahahahahahhahahhahahahha ?

QuoteIts best to isolate that your self and I do it in 2 ways one with a small universal motor say from a tile cutter 500 watt with added neo and ferrite magnets and tap it from a battery ..... But tap it in the 5th scale note of the frequency that the motor is spinning ! Do this for an hour than ground the negative of the battery to earth and the battery will charge it self up hahahhahahahah
I told you I don't do drugs

Well maybe a little happy gas  :o

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 02, 2015, 08:31:51 AM
I am right ...... I told you I don't do drugs ! The thing is you guys don't know what a 5th is and that is why you are not getting anywhere ! Its the most important thing to learn in free energy and there is no OVER UNITY ... JUST FREE ENERGY..! There is so much free energy in the most basic of systems I cant begin to calculate it . All you have to go on is youtube and historic data and a lot of miss adventures in the field... Now the battery trick hahahah the battery can just charge its self up every time ! Its secret is in how you discharge it ......... 12V AT A 1 AMP hour limit has a maximum 12 second discharge rate ! A second is in fact an imperial number and not a metric number and all imperial numbers are harmonic ......... Its the law of nature and all electrical energy belongs to it !

Mile high is searching for any way he can to find a loop on his pancake coils but there the wrong coils hahahahha In this case with the cells there is something going on that is of interest but it does not calculate to what people want it to . I see no error in this mans work ! He has discharged into a system yet he finds he still has volts .. Ok and these volts at first seem to have no power but give it a few hours and the batteries will have some amps back ........ Now how does that happen ? Its best to isolate that your self and I do it in 2 ways one with a small universal motor say from a tile cutter 500 watt with added neo and ferrite magnets and tap it from a battery ..... But tap it in the 5th scale note of the frequency that the motor is spinning ! Do this for an hour than ground the negative of the battery to earth and the battery will charge it self up hahahhahahahah

The other way is with a negative charge into a small set of capacitors via a 22 watt transformer that has been swiped with a ferrite magnet ........ You tap the transformer at the primary coil yet you connect the capacitors to the secondary coil and you may need to use just one diode ............. To confirm your negative charge into the capacitor connect it to the battery and it will blow up hahahahah

Also leave the battery drain out but the volts will still show as normal or at least half the volts you started with and it will pull up the amps but if you add your negative cap to the negative of the battery the battery will charge to normal hahahahha

No need to charge a battery ever again hahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaha !

93rd
Im not sure why,but you reminded me of a song Haha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

Quote from: tinman on December 02, 2015, 04:18:23 AM
i can achieve the same discharge curve as RMS shows with his EESD by using a 25 farad cap discharging over a 10 ohm resistor. The voltage and current drop over the given time are within a micky wisker of each other. So it would seem that RMS's EESD capacity is very close to 25 farads. The thing i dont know is to what voltage RMS's EESD can be charged to,where as the 25 farad cap can be charged to 2.7 volt's. At 1.5 volts,the 25 farad cap will store 28.125 joules of energy,but at 2.7 volts,it will store 91.125 joules of energy.

The other differences are
1-my 25 farad cap weighs some 16 times that of the EESD in total,
2-the super cap would be a lot more expensive to buy,than it would be to make the EESD.
3-If the EESD were lifted to the weight volume of that of the super cap-->in other words,we would have 16 of his EESD's charged to 1.5 volts,then the capacity would exceed that of the super cap by a factor 5x-or very close to,when the super cap was charged to the full 2.7 volts.

Things we still need to know
1-Cycle life of the EESD
2-safety issue's-like,will they catch fire if the load is too heavy :D
3-how fast can they be charged before heat destroys them.

Great research Tinman and appreciate the comparison with a 25 Farad cap. I believe the major challenge is with the Li-Ion comparison.  This is probably where we have the biggest gap.
Things we still need to knpow for B type EESD
1-Does Increased density of material increase storage (mA or V)
2- Total Weight of EESD cell (Seperator, cathode anode)
3-Storage time - how long till self discharge

and also your items for C- Type EESD
4- Peak Volt and Amp charge per cell
5-Cycle life
6-Safety will my car explode :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3G2ZWiEXXI

I believe the graphene super capacitor challenges can be solved but from a battery EESD perspective the gap appears to be very large. Perhaps the solution will be a Lithium graphene battery taking advantage of the storage density of Li-Ion and the fast charging properties of graphene supercaps.

Quote from: Nink on December 02, 2015, 10:24:43 AM
Great research Tinman and appreciate the comparison with a 25 Farad cap. I believe the major challenge is with the Li-Ion comparison.  This is probably where we have the biggest gap.
Things we still need to knpow for B type EESD
1-Does Increased density of material increase storage (mA or V)
2- Total Weight of EESD cell (Seperator, cathode anode)
3-Storage time - how long till self discharge

and also your items for C- Type EESD
4- Peak Volt and Amp charge per cell
5-Cycle life
6-Safety will my car explode :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3G2ZWiEXXI

I believe the graphene super capacitor challenges can be solved but from a battery EESD perspective the gap appears to be very large. Perhaps the solution will be a Lithium graphene battery taking advantage of the storage density of Li-Ion and the fast charging properties of graphene supercaps.

I believe that the original term-ultra capacitor, was for the capacitor/battery hybrid.
They were getting around 4000 farads with a 12 volt potential in something the size of a AA battery. I believe you can buy these on ebay,and i think they were for car audio systems.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 02, 2015, 07:08:25 AM
I have made no claims. I simply object to the way you tear people down and asassinate their character because they made an error. And as he said all through the video the numbers don't matter because the numbers are still amazing.

Why not just point out the mistake as Brad has done and then let's get on with it. I don't object to your knowledge, just the way you deliver it sometimes.

You are still playing straw man.  I don't tear people down and assassinate people's characters, stop saying it.  However, sometimes saying something in strong terms is a proportional response to the situation.  If your daughter was brought to the emergency and she needed blood and the doctor on staff wasn't aware that there are different blood types you would be pretty freaked out, aghast, and you would not want that "doctor" going anywhere near your daughter, right?  You might want to sue the hospital.  Well, if you are in the business of making battery cells and you are a director of a company, presumably in a technological capacity, that pitches new higher-energy-density battery cells and you completely fail to demonstrate competence in measuring the energy in your own cells, that's a pretty damn serious issue, don't you think?  The data as incorrectly presented  might be exaggerating the energy density by weight by 5X, 8X, or even higher.  That's a pretty serious problem, don't you think?

The numbers are NOT amazing, why are you saying that?  I just posted that the data as presented may show that he has no advantage over lithium-ion cells by wright, none.

Here is what Simon Derricutt stated about the issue on Revolution-Green:

QuoteMH - at 17:42 on that video it seems he's calculating on mAh/kg where he should be using mWh/kg. With a 3.8V Lithium battery and a maximum voltage of the EESD of 1.3V going down to around 200mV, with power varying as V², he's overstating the energy stored in the EESD by around 100 times and instead of being around 7 times the energy-density of Lithium cell it's instead around 1/14th of it. This is around what we predicted.That V² rule fools a lot of people. I'm however a bit surprised that RMS is getting it wrong. Could be one of those Doh! moments when he sees the mistake.
I haven't been following OU recently, so didn't see the responses.

Hey Jim, did you notice that for three or four postings that Atommix93 is attacking me and calling me all sorts of nasty names?  How come you have nothing to say about that?

MileHigh

Quote from: tinman on December 02, 2015, 04:18:23 AM
So regardless of the mistakes you and i picked up on,it would still seems that the EESD exceeds todays super caps per weight volume by a factor of 5.

So now what?.

I would say to you, "so now nothing" until RMS can present credible data.  All bets are off.

All of you guys need to understand the scientific method and how the burden is on your shoulders to get it right.

I watched one of RMS's capacitor clips and he made a big claim about the size of the capacitor.  I asked him for measurements to back up his claims and he balked and got very testy.

Then I think you rode off of one of his clips and claimed that you made a 2600 farad capacitor.  But you didn't make measurements either.  I made a really quick and dirty estimate of the average charging power required based on your claim of 2600 farads and the amount of time it took you to charge the capacitor, which was something like a few minutes.   I calculated that the average charging power would have to be 20 watts.

Now think about that.  You have a super cap.  If the cap voltage is 0.2 volts you have to be pumping in 100 amps to be putting 20 watts of power into the cap.  If the cap voltage is 0.5 volts then you have to be pumping in 40 amps.  In the clip, if I recall correctly, you do charge the capacitor, and there no sense that the drain on the power supply is anything like that.

Just by eyeballing what you did in your clip, and making the roughest dirtiest paper napkin calculations, my conclusion was your claimed 2600 farads farads for the capacitor you made yourself is way way off.  Plus I saw no measurements and if you were hitching a ride on RMS's coattails to make an inference about the value of your own capacitor, then it's a no-go as far as I am concerned.

One day, you should make a serious measurement on your claimed 2600 farad capacitor.  You might be in for a surprise.  The whole mindset has to be trained to make serious measurements when you make your own components.  It's simply the right way to do things.  Don't hitch on anybody else's coattails because you believe your device is similar to theirs, or something like that.  Always make proper measurements yourself.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on December 02, 2015, 11:33:42 AM
You are still playing straw man.  I don't tear people down and assassinate people's characters, stop saying it.  However, sometimes saying something in strong terms is a proportional response to the situation.  If your daughter was brought to the emergency and she needed blood and the doctor on staff wasn't aware that there are different blood types you would be pretty freaked out, aghast, and you would not want that "doctor" going anywhere near your daughter, right?  You might want to sue the hospital.  Well, if you are in the business of making battery cells and you are a director of a company, presumably in a technological capacity, that pitches new higher-energy-density battery cells and you completely fail to demonstrate competence in measuring the energy in your own cells, that's a pretty damn serious issue, don't you think?  The data as incorrectly presented  might be exaggerating the energy density by weight by 5X, 8X, or even higher.  That's a pretty serious problem, don't you think?

The numbers are NOT amazing, why are you saying that?  I just posted that the data as presented may show that he has no advantage over lithium-ion cells by wright, none.

Here is what Simon Derricutt stated about the issue on Revolution-Green:

Hey Jim, did you notice that for three or four postings that Atommix93 is attacking me and calling me all sorts of nasty names?  How come you have nothing to say about that?

MileHigh

You get what you give. You are quite simply a coward. Abusing ppl behind anonymity. i have no time for cowards so you are now on my ignore list.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 02, 2015, 03:26:27 PM

You get what you give. You are quite simply a coward. Abusing ppl behind anonymity. i have no time for cowards so you are now on my ignore list.

The old "anonymous" cliche again.  I did not abuse anybody, you are full of crap.  You're on my spineless list as someone afraid to state the truth when it's right in front of their face.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 02, 2015, 12:16:19 PM
I would say to you, "so now nothing" until RMS can present credible data.  All bets are off.

All of you guys need to understand the scientific method and how the burden is on your shoulders to get it right.

I watched one of RMS's capacitor clips and he made a big claim about the size of the capacitor.  I asked him for measurements to back up his claims and he balked and got very testy.

Then I think you rode off of one of his clips and claimed that you made a 2600 farad capacitor.  But you didn't make measurements either.  I made a really quick and dirty estimate of the average charging power required based on your claim of 2600 farads and the amount of time it took you to charge the capacitor, which was something like a few minutes.   I calculated that the average charging power would have to be 20 watts.

Now think about that.  You have a super cap.  If the cap voltage is 0.2 volts you have to be pumping in 100 amps to be putting 20 watts of power into the cap.  If the cap voltage is 0.5 volts then you have to be pumping in 40 amps.  In the clip, if I recall correctly, you do charge the capacitor, and there no sense that the drain on the power supply is anything like that.

Just by eyeballing what you did in your clip, and making the roughest dirtiest paper napkin calculations, my conclusion was your claimed 2600 farads farads for the capacitor you made yourself is way way off.  Plus I saw no measurements and if you were hitching a ride on RMS's coattails to make an inference about the value of your own capacitor, then it's a no-go as far as I am concerned.

One day, you should make a serious measurement on your claimed 2600 farad capacitor.  You might be in for a surprise.  The whole mindset has to be trained to make serious measurements when you make your own components.  It's simply the right way to do things.  Don't hitch on anybody else's coattails because you believe your device is similar to theirs, or something like that.  Always make proper measurements yourself.

MileHigh

You are going on the assumption that my video was to show that 2600 farad capacity-which it was not. I only partly charged that capacitor purely for the video demonstration. the video demonstration was just that-not a capacity test. Tests were carried out against a 100 farad capacitor-in the same way i did with RMS's EESD. As the home made capacitor would run a known set load for a time period that was 26 times longer than that of the 100 farad super capacitor at the same voltage and current output ,then i concluded that it had 26 times the capacity of that of the 100 farad super cap. Rough and dirty i know,but close non the less.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 02, 2015, 05:55:38 PM
The old "anonymous" cliche again.  I did not abuse anybody, you are full of crap.

Thats not very nice MH  :o
Jimboot is one of the good guys.

Be nice-->everyone has a right to voice there opinion.
I have not seen him challenge your measurement errors you picked on RMS's video.

QuoteYou're on my spineless list as someone afraid to state the truth when it's right in front of their face.

Are you saying-even though we dont disagree with you,we will be on your spineless list if we dont actually say we agree with you?.

Are you having a bad day MH?.
Most of us here are not your enemy MH.

Quote from: tinman on December 02, 2015, 07:51:10 PM
Thats not very nice MH  :o
Jimboot is one of the good guys.

Be nice-->everyone has a right to voice there opinion.
I have not seen him challenge your measurement errors you picked on RMS's video.

Are you saying-even though we dont disagree with you,we will be on your spineless list if we dont actually say we agree with you?.

Are you having a bad day MH?.
Most of us here are not your enemy MH.

Jim simply won't sate that what RMS did is wrong and there is a history in the thread that anybody can read.  He tried to impugn my character by defending the indefensible:

QuoteBuild something better MH. Oh that's right you don't build, you tear down. I can't comment on your calculations, what I would say is that I'd trust a man who gives freely and generously of his time rather than one who seemingly spend all his time criticising others work and does none himself.

It's a bad day when people are "afraid" to say things and act like zombie pod people.  He can damn well comment on my calculations, he is simply too scared to do that.

When Jim first engaged with me several months ago he tried to play the jackass and mock me and insult me because, heaven forbid, I called things as I saw them.  He was trying to play the ass to "impress" the masses.  I challenged him on that and he went into a humongous spin zone to try and make himself look good and deny his BS.

That's just the way it is.  Robert Murry Smith should take down his nonsensical clip, issue an apology, and try again.  How can he possibly do what he did considering the position he is in?  I don't have to "defend" that statement.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on December 02, 2015, 05:55:38 PM
.  I did not abuse anybody, you are full of crap.  You're on my spineless list as someone afraid to state the truth when it's right in front of their face.

You see most ppl would classify the above as abuse and been done from anonymity is usually the act of a coward. The fact that you cannot see that is the problem. "Normal" people treat each other with mutual respect. I have no issues with you being anonymous. I do have a big issue with you being anonymous and the continual vitriol you spew. I have no interest in either yours or RMS calculations and will not comment as there are plenty of others more qualified to do so here.


I doubt very much you would say any of the things you have published in this thread to my face. Here's a recap.
"[size=0px] [/size][size=0px]He can damn well comment on my calculations, he is simply too scared to do that." [/size]
"You are FOS"[/size]
"So you would rather act the fool "[/size]
"If you had any damn courage and strength of character" (ironically from Mr anonymous) [/size]
"[/size]you are just his lackey and playing the fool"[/size]
"[/size]You don't have the guts or character[/size] "[/size]
"you are full of crap"[/size]
"[/size]You're on my spineless list as someone afraid to state the truth"[/size]
"[/size]he is simply too scared to do that."[/size]


For someone that is insistent on correct data you certainly make a lot of assumptions. I understand why you are anonymous. Probably too many impending lawsuits.

My comments are a response to your foolishness.  You are just a poseur and a coward afraid to speak the truth.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 02, 2015, 10:26:31 PM
My comments are a response to your foolishness.  You are just a poseur and a coward afraid to speak the truth.

I'll face you any day mate. Do you want my address in Melbourne? I'm not the one hiding and hurling abuse.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 02, 2015, 11:03:41 PM
I'll face you any day mate. Do you want my address in Melbourne? I'm not the one hiding and hurling abuse.

So I guess that I am not on your ignore list and now you are threatening physical violence on me?  You should go back to staring blankly at your spinny pulse motor since you apparently don't understand how to use an ammeter, a voltmeter, and a clock.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 02, 2015, 11:08:33 PM
So I guess that I am not on your ignore list and now you are threatening physical violence on me?  You should go back to staring blankly at your spinny pulse motor since you apparently don't understand how to use an ammeter, a voltmeter, and a clock.

Actually the truth is in my nearly 10 years of being on this forum I've only had to use it once and I can't find the thing. I am not a violent man and I have not threatened you. I offered you the opportunity to abuse me to my face rather than hiding behind your keyboard. Or I can come to your place if you like? My address is 2a 14 Lionel Road Mt Waverley Victoria Australia 3149 if you decide to come downunder.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 03, 2015, 12:34:04 AM
if you decide to come downunder.

All the aggro aside,Australia really is the best place on earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4NuX0qWuY

Quote from: tinman on December 03, 2015, 02:11:35 AM

All the aggro aside,Australia really is the best place on earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4NuX0qWuY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4NuX0qWuY)

Great clip. Hadn't seen that one. Iva Davies takes me  back.

This IS for MICROMLOW..You know who you are a great person.
And when i invent my free energy machine  i will choose you
MICROMLOW  to let the whole world know what i have created.
And a little something for you MICROLOW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJUWCRq-sCk

Quote from: Jimboot on December 03, 2015, 12:34:04 AM
Actually the truth is in my nearly 10 years of being on this forum I've only had to use it once and I can't find the thing. I am not a violent man and I have not threatened you. I offered you the opportunity to abuse me to my face rather than hiding behind your keyboard. Or I can come to your place if you like? My address is 2a 14 Lionel Road Mt Waverley Victoria Australia 3149 if you decide to come downunder.

You clearly threatened me like some jackass chav that wants to arrange a physical fight after a Facebook dispute.  Putting up your address is just a feint to try to make yourself look innocent after the fact.  Your address is out there already because you are a public Internet marketing consultant, so it's a meaningless gesture.

Your behaviour clearly demonstrates why I choose to be anonymous, Brad chooses to be anonymous, and 99.5% of the rest of the users on this forum choose to be anonymous.  We don't want the risk of having to deal with people like you in real life.

You want some interesting reading about the "electric supercar" that I predict with high confidence will never come into existence:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/52844-Edison-Electron-One

http://insideevs.com/edison-electron-one-electric-supercar-expected-debut-q1-2016/

QuoteDr. Robert Murray-Smith, Director of Sunvault Energy said:

The fuel cell will be powered by an on demand Hydrogen generation unit built into the car and will only require water

.

More on SunVault:

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=11028724-7849-135153&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=880764&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1547716 (http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=11028724-7849-135153&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=880764&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1547716)

<<< These consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which implies the Company will continue to realize its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. The continuation of the Company as a going concern is dependent upon the continued financial support from its shareholders, the ability of the Company to obtain necessary equity financing to continue operations, and the attainment of profitable operations. As at September 30, 2015, the Company has a working capital deficiency of $3,371,682 and has accumulated losses of $7,928,731 since inception. These factors raise substantial doubt regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. These consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.>>>

Don't hold your breath for an "electric supercar" to become available by March 31st, 2016 that makes use of RMS's yet-to-be-proven battery storage cells or supercapacitors.

For those that want to register:

Sunvault Energy: Late Filings Aren't The Only Problems

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3245496-sunvault-energy-late-filings-arent-the-only-problems?page=1 (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3245496-sunvault-energy-late-filings-arent-the-only-problems?page=2)

HI MICROMLOW I DO NOT HAVE TO HIDE MY IDENTITY.
THIS WHEN I AM HAPPY..

NOW YOU DO NOT WANT TO PISS ME OFF.

Quote from: seychelles on December 03, 2015, 08:45:50 AM
NOW YOU DO NOT WANT TO PISS ME OFF.

Dude
Even our Roo's would have that bloke for breakfast.

meet Roger the Roo.

YOU have put me off kangaroo stake  now, i did not know they
are on steroids now.

Quote from: tinman on December 03, 2015, 02:11:35 AM

All the aggro aside,Australia really is the best place on earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4NuX0qWuY

I grew up in Australia but as an adult I have moved around the world.  Australians are an extremely resourceful culture. They are not afraid to try new things, nor are they afraid of failure. As a result Australians are some of the most innovative people in the world.

One of the challenges Australians have on the world stage is in relation to formal education. The focus in Australia on "western education" is not at the same level in comparison to  Europe (UK, Germany, Sweden) and North America (US, Canada). There is only one University from Australia in the top 50 world rankings. The University of Melbourne ranks in at 33 and a large percentage of the students attending are from overseas.

I actually do not believe this is a bad thing. The western education system certainly provides an environment for learning but my perception is they are also focused on telling people what they can't do versus "just give it a go" and try.   I struggled assimilating into other cultures as a result of this. In Australia making mistakes or trying something that does not work is not perceived as a failure, it is simply a lesson learned.

Quote from: seychelles on December 03, 2015, 09:50:06 AM
YOU have put me off kangaroo stake  now, i did not know they
are on steroids now.

Lol

Roger the Roo is over 2 meters tall,and weighs in at over 20 stone-127Kgs.
most of the older bucks are muscle bound.
Roger live on a reserve in Alice Springs.

   MileHigh, nearly everything on this forum comes under the "you must be joking"
sort of category. There's no need to address people with the nasty sort of tone
that you seem to be using a lot these days. For me it's a bit of entertainment and
I think that view is taken by many others. Kinetic energy rules!

Quote from: minnie on December 03, 2015, 12:49:05 PM
   MileHigh, nearly everything on this forum comes under the "you must be joking"
sort of category. There's no need to address people with the nasty sort of tone
that you seem to be using a lot these days. For me it's a bit of entertainment and
I think that view is taken by many others. Kinetic energy rules!

When you get attacked for pointing out a gross gross error by somebody that is supposed to be the technical expert for a struggling little company in financial dire straights you are going to defend yourself.  Plus I got threatened, and that's real.  It's wise to question things and to question people's motives.  In the real world as opposed to the forums RMS's "error" would be quickly dealt with.  I am not a sheeple and I can clearly distinguish right from wrong.  There has been more nasty tone directed at me than me defending myself back.

As of right now there is no evidence of a special battery that outperforms a lithium-ion battery and there are no credible measurements of the value of the graphene-based supercapacitors that I am aware of.  There is just unsubstantiated talk.

Some choice quotes from my links.  Welcome to the real world:

QuoteForget it, it's a complete scam! The claims don't even make sense: a hydrogen generator on board – presumably run by electricity – used to split water to produce hydrogen which in turn will be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity to run the car!

QuoteSo. This company has come up with some excellent graphene batteries. How much would YOU pay to be the first to benefit from this awesome breakthrough? But wait! They also have developed a fool cell with onboard electrolyzation! NOW how much would you pay?
But wait! There's more! They have also designed a SUPERCARRRRRRRRRR! That's right, a Supercar! Incorporating All Three of these technologies that seem to have appeared out of thin air!
NOW how much would you pay???
Hmmmmm???

Quote
But as long as you have this amazing graphene battery splitting water in the tank to produce hydrogen, you can use that hydrogen to charge the battery and the car will run forever!  Right?
I agree this is a scam that ties the classic dream of a car that runs on water to the classic dream of a car that uses a magical 5-minute-to-charge battery all in a way that makes no physical sense.

Quote"The fuel cell will be powered by an on demand Hydrogen generation unit built into the car and will only require water."
So then, this is just another perpetual motion scam.
An on-demand hydrogen generator would require far more energy to power than it would provide in hydrogen fuel. If they're claiming this would actually be practical, then it's a perpetual motion claim.

QuoteThe article claims this car performs "on demand Hydrogen generation". That would not be powered by plugging it in. "On demand" means it's generated as needed while the car is driving down the road. As has been said, the only way to do that, in the vehicle as described, is to use electricity to generate hydrogen, which of course is then oxidized to produce a lot less electricity than it took to generate the hydrogen. There is no rational reason to do that; it would require expensive equipment which would do nothing but waste energy.
It's a scam, period.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 03, 2015, 07:21:50 AM
You clearly threatened me like some jackass chav that wants to arrange a physical fight after a Facebook dispute.  Putting up your address is just a feint to try to make yourself look innocent after the fact.  Your address is out there already because you are a public Internet marketing consultant, so it's a meaningless gesture.

Your behaviour clearly demonstrates why I choose to be anonymous, Brad chooses to be anonymous, and 99.5% of the rest of the users on this forum choose to be anonymous.  We don't want the risk of having to deal with people like you in real life.

Er... I 'm connected with Brad on FB & Skype... we know his name is Brad... umm. I'm guessing the reason you are anonymous is so you can be an offensive l without repercussions. I did not attack you or threaten anyone can read the thread if they are bored out the brain and see that. You obviously don't get it. I care too much that's my problem.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 03, 2015, 02:46:30 PM
Er... I 'm connected with Brad on FB & Skype... we know his name is Brad... umm

Absolutely brilliant.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 03, 2015, 02:54:44 PM
Absolutely brilliant.

thanks mate..

Quote from: Jimboot on December 03, 2015, 02:46:30 PM
Er... I 'm connected with Brad on FB & Skype... we know his name is Brad... umm. I'm guessing the reason you are anonymous is so you can be an offensive l without repercussions. I did not attack you or threaten anyone can read the thread if they are bored out the brain and see that. You obviously don't get it. I care too much that's my problem.

You threatened me and you are simply a poseur.  Your head would implode if you dared to be honest with yourself and with the people around here.  You "can't comment" on RMS's ridiculous "mistake" my ass.  It must be stressful and fatiguing to be "on" all the time and grind away at your psyche to be "in character" all the time.  Right mate?

   MileHigh, both yourself and RMS. have both demonstrated an amount of
naivety on one aspect of this device-but I'm leaving that aside.
   For me the main plus point of the whole thing is that if it works to
fairly average efficiency is that the materials used are both safe and
readily available.

I only commented on the energy claims for the device which are absolutely false.  When what amounts to a "chief technical officer" for a battery company makes a clip where he can't even measure the energy capacity of one of his own batteries, it's a serious problem that merits being pointed out.  The claims are grossly exaggerated, and that can easily influence people that don't know any better, as is amply shown in the YouTube comments.  The false claims could also influence people with money to invest, which is unethical.  That merits some strong language, but the language was never abusive, which is just a false characterization by you know who.

You cannot ignore these points.  Your "main point" is a secondary point.  If the batteries can indeed be manufactured with more benign materials that is a good thing.  The problem is that this tiny company from what I can gather is far away from any manufacturing phase.  It takes a lot of money to do that, and over say the past five years there may have been hundreds of press releases about "breakthrough battery technology" that never saw the light of day.  If they actually had something that was really good, perhaps simply licensing it to a major battery manufacturer would be a viable way of bringing it to market.

All that being said, the clip is truly awful and makes totally false claims.  Does the truth not mean anything anymore?  Are we all just a bunch of sheeple?

Quote from: MileHigh on December 03, 2015, 03:34:23 PM
You threatened me and you are simply a poseur.  Your head would implode if you dared to be honest with yourself and with the people around here.  You "can't comment" on RMS's ridiculous "mistake" my ass.  It must be stressful and fatiguing to be "on" all the time and grind away at your psyche to be "in character" all the time.  Right mate?

Naaah being happy is my thing these days. I highly recommend the happify app on iOS. I reckon you'd get a lot from it.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 03, 2015, 04:54:00 PM
Naaah being happy is my thing these days. I highly recommend the happify app on iOS. I reckon you'd get a lot from it.

Of course you would still be "on."

All that you did was spread out a mountain of hate and harassment for nothing.  My point still stands, the measurement made by RMS was nonsense and unacceptable and it is worth pointing out.  It's highly questionable in the context of the fact that this is affiliated with a company pitching product and it could be considered unethical pumping.

I was not abusive and my language was simply strong and I can use strong language if I want.  You are lying and impugning my character when you say that.  Go find comments where you allege I am openly abusive to people over the past year, see what you come up with.

This was just a stupid "performance" from you in an attempt to defend the indefensible.  It was just a stupid song and dance.  You spread out all this hate and what did you get?  Did you change anything?  The answer is no.  This was just an exercise in stupid ass chav/yob thuggery on your part for nothing.  To puff out your chest and "take me on" so people could read you and take in your "performance."  You should be ashamed of yourself for what you did.  You tried your best to make me out as the bad guy when you are the real bad guy spreading out all this hate just for the sake of hate and performance.

You had a good "fight" with me and you harassed me over and over, for what?  Do you feel good about yourself?  Are you proud of yourself?  Are you going to come back with some little attempt at wittiness again?  Is that's what it's all about for you?

I made my point, and any attempts by you to attack me and trying to defend the indefensible are just you being morally bankrupt and making an ass of yourself.  If you had had any guts and character you would simply have agreed with my point.  In fact I am sure you agree with me but you won't say it.  If you said it you would crack and expose your sham.  Get your act together and act like a decent civil person instead of harassing me and spreading hate.  Try working on being yourself instead of this phony baloney "character."

Quote from: MileHigh on December 03, 2015, 07:50:40 PM
Of course you would still be "on."

All that you did was spread out a mountain of hate and harassment for nothing.  My point still stands, the measurement made by RMS was nonsense and unacceptable and it is worth pointing out.  It's highly questionable in the context of the fact that this is affiliated with a company pitching product and it could be considered unethical pumping.

I was not abusive and my language was simply strong and I can use strong language if I want.  You are lying and impugning my character when you say that.  Go find comments where you allege I am openly abusive to people over the past year, see what you come up with.

This was just a stupid "performance" from you in an attempt to defend the indefensible.  It was just a stupid song and dance.  You spread out all this hate and what did you get?  Did you change anything?  The answer is no.  This was just an exercise in stupid ass chav/yob thuggery on your part for nothing.  To puff out your chest and "take me on" so people could read you and take in your "performance."  You should be ashamed of yourself for what you did.  You tried your best to make me out as the bad guy when you are the real bad guy spreading out all this hate just for the sake of hate and performance.

You had a good "fight" with me and you harassed me over and over, for what?  Do you feel good about yourself?  Are you proud of yourself?  Are you going to come back with some little attempt at wittiness again?  Is that's what it's all about for you?

I made my point, and any attempts by you to attack me and trying to defend the indefensible are just you being morally bankrupt and making an ass of yourself.  If you had had any guts and character you would simply have agreed with my point.  In fact I am sure you agree with me but you won't say it.  If you said it you would crack and expose your sham.  Get your act together and act like a decent civil person instead of harassing me and spreading hate.  Try working on being yourself instead of this phony baloney "character."

Oh man, you make me smile. "act like a decent civil person instead of harassing me and spreading hate." You're looking in the mirror when you said that right? Do you get out much? Do you socialise? I'm genuinely interested because I don't know you. You and I have VERY different ideas of what is socially acceptable and I cannot understand why you seem to full of such vitriol and hate. [/size]

[/size]
As I have stated before and I will state it again - I have not questioned your calculations. The point I was trying to make to you is that this whole thread started off as your little game of "spot the error" and you slandering Robert Murray. I simply asked you why the game why the slander? [/size]

[/size]
Please be so kind as to post my hateful remarks here. As for your abusive remarks over the past year... well you were banned for some of them I believe quite recently? Did you forget that? I'm actually quite a busy person like many here and I really don't have time to get the numerous examples of you being abusive to others here. In fact I actually defended you in one thread.  I'm sure others who have been the target of such abuse will have a better idea than me.


I'm sorry you see my questions as harassment. I can't control the way you feel, that is in your domain. For instance when you say I'm FOS it in no way upsets me because I have no idea who you are. You actually mean nothing to me. Others I have met here are wonderful and helpful. In fact to numerous to mention. Many of us have made wonderful friends here and we catch up regularly on line.  Generally we treat each other with respect. I just like this forum and it would be great if when you find a fault in someones work, you simply point out where the mistake is rather than the song and dance you made this thread and insinuating they are a crook. Should lower your blood pressure too! :) (btw I still haven't found the ignore button) PS,You make false claims. You have already abused others in this thread.

There was a good reason for asking people if they could spot the glaring error.  This is a forum for energy research and if you can't spot an error in a clip like that, then you have to take stock and work on improving your skill set.  Pointing out facts is not slander.  Verb:  "Make false and damaging statements about (someone)."  I did not state anything that was false and people can draw their own conclusions about the clip.  Repeat: There was no slander.  So your little show is over and the facts are the facts.  With respect to another issue, stating the truth to EMjunkie drove him nuts and he wigged out and so both of us got banned.  That thread continues on and there is still nothing there.  And I was subject to abuse and I defended myself, go figure.  You are the one that needs to look in the mirror.

If RMS does not take down his clip and issue an apology and redo it properly, then people can draw their own conclusions one more time.  Right now the correct conclusion is that he has not demonstrated that his compounds for making his battery show an energy to weight ratio advantage over a lithium-ion cell.  He should take down that clip.

At 19:23 in the clip he says, "We've done that (the testing on his device) so we can make a direct comparison (with the lithium-ion battery)."  But he completely fails to make a direct comparison and the clip is a sham.

I commented on his clip:

On a cookie-free browser I can't see my YouTube posting.  I assume that is a YouTube feature and RMS is hiding my posting from public view.  But presumably RMS can see my posting, the only question is whether or not he will do something about it.  Scientific integrity and intellectual honesty and all that important stuff comes to mind.

I made some postings that he can't delete or hide on one of Lasersaber's clips.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/sunvault-energy-adds-robert-murray-smith-phd-to-its-board-of-directors-otcqb-svlt-2025367.htm (http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/sunvault-energy-adds-robert-murray-smith-phd-to-its-board-of-directors-otcqb-svlt-2025367.htm)

<<< "We are extremely pleased to have Dr. Murray-Smith join our board of directors," commented Gary Monaghan, Sunvault Energy CEO. "His contributions towards the combined work on our graphene battery will lead to the development of a graphene battery that will be far beyond anyone's current expectations," he added. Over the last number of weeks Sunvault technical team members and Dr. Robert Murray-Smith have developed what they believe to be a world changing graphene supercapacitor / battery. The size of the battery that the company believes it has created has far surpassed any industry expectations of what is believed could be created with graphene today. In the weeks to come the Company will begin independent third party verifications of this exciting development.

For clarification purposes, the battery that has been produced has been produced completely outside of the previously announced Supervault joint venture agreement. Sunvault Energy for speed to market reasons and for final product capability has developed in conjunction with Dr. Robert Murray- Smith a more robust and expansive graphene super capacitor /battery. A product with the fast charging elements of a supercapacitor combined with the power density of a battery. The methods used were not any used by the former Supervault JV. >>>

I wonder how those "independent third party verifications" are coming along now that we are six months since the press release and the verifications were supposed to start in the "weeks to come."

Quote from: MileHigh on December 04, 2015, 04:26:48 AM
There was a good reason for asking people if they could spot the glaring error.  This is a forum for energy research and if you can't spot an error in a clip like that, then you have to take stock and work on improving your skill set.  Pointing out facts is not slander.  Verb:  "Make false and damaging statements about (someone)."  I did not state anything that was false and people can draw their own conclusions about the clip.  Repeat: There was no slander.  So your little show is over and the facts are the facts.  With respect to another issue, stating the truth to EMjunkie drove him nuts and he wigged out and so both of us got banned.  That thread continues on and there is still nothing there.  And I was subject to abuse and I defended myself, go figure.  You are the one that needs to look in the mirror.

If RMS does not take down his clip and issue an apology and redo it properly, then people can draw their own conclusions one more time.  Right now the correct conclusion is that he has not demonstrated that his compounds for making his battery show an energy to weight ratio advantage over a lithium-ion cell.  He should take down that clip.

At 19:23 in the clip he says, "We've done that (the testing on his device) so we can make a direct comparison (with the lithium-ion battery)."  But he completely fails to make a direct comparison and the clip is a sham.

You really should retract your false claim that you have not abused people in this forum in the past 12 months. Not sure why you are trying to deceive us. I think you need to make an apology to everyone here for making such false claims.  You should also take all our rubbish out, iron our clothes and do other chores around the house for being so misleading.

Quote from: Jimboot on December 04, 2015, 04:40:40 PM
I think you need to make an apology to everyone here for making such false claims.

MH, Obviously, you should do nothing of the sort.

Between you and TK, you are the principal ones not afraid to tell the truth.

Notice, no one EVER refutes your claims. They just don't like the way it was delivered.
(mostly because it turns their beliefs upside down)

Pete

Quote from: PIH123 on December 04, 2015, 07:47:10 PM
MH, Obviously, you should do nothing of the sort.

Between you and TK, you are the principal ones not afraid to tell the truth.

Notice, no one EVER refutes your claims. They just don't like the way it was delivered.
(mostly because it turns their beliefs upside down)

Pete

I'm referring to his claim he has never abused anyone here in the last 12 months. Nothing to do with his calculations

Quote from: Jimboot on December 04, 2015, 08:03:26 PM
I'm referring to his claim he has never abused anyone here in the last 12 months. Nothing to do with his calculations

So, Let's review.

His calculations were completely spot on (as I have learned many times) and admitted by you -unless I missed that.

And hence he had every right to start a thread bringing into doubt RMS's claims.



And yet, you were still the one earlier in the thread who said that you would trust RMS over MH.


And then much later on in the thread, when your guy RMS (someone giving freely of their knowledge, much like EMJ, Wayne, HopeGirl and many more),
is shown to be someone who is knowingly making false claims.
You then need to go after MH's identity and then later method of delivery of the truthful message.


Why is it that every supporter of blatantly false FE and Huge energy improvement claims, have to resort to questions of ones identity.
BTW if one wants to know why people use pseudonyms on the web, please see the thread
by Hoppfield http://overunity.com/16125/besslers-mt-125/msg464993/#msg464993 (http://overunity.com/16125/besslers-mt-125/msg464993/#msg464993) where he has contacted the Law about another member.


BTW 2, my Mum never christened me PIH123, and I am hoping your mom had better sense than to name their son Jimboot.


Pete

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 04, 2015, 08:48:51 PM
Ok little heads big mouths ask the man in question to respond to your claims

Did you miss the rest of the thread?.

How many times has MH shown where he has tried to reach out to RMS and RMS deleted that comment?

I can't see those comments any more, but I did see them briefly and can see the evidence where they were posted.


Look for negative comments on HopeGirls videos.
And for comparison, look how many comments on their be-do.com forum after the announcement of successful overunity.
It is an eye opener.

Pete

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 04, 2015, 08:48:51 PMand MH has never built and OU technology

And as for that comment, if he has never been able to do it, then neither will anyone on this forum ever get there.

And by TA (are you referring to Theoria-"A-Pot-To-Piss-In"Apophasis).
Yeah, well he has never shown anything worthwhile, so don't get all bent up over Kenny.

Pete

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 04, 2015, 10:12:13 PM
...

TA the mad one is a vial monster of the mouth and MH is not someone I would trust and there for I do not believe he would of made contact or even tried to contact this man

....


I don't care of the perfection in the maths but there is a longer period of charge going on ...... And even that is pointless !

Re: 1st paragraph. I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say, so OK, I agree.

Re: 2nd paragraph, Yes TA is Mad. No probs there.
But I have witnessed MH's comments (there for a few hours in my browser) on RMS's channel.

They were suppressed.
WTF.
I thought only working devices have been suppressed over the last 140 years  ??? ??? ???



And obviously, you don't care about the math (let alone perfection), otherwise, you would not be commenting in a negative way.


And BTW, RMS comes from my home town in the UK, for which I should have some pride, and yet I feel sadly let down.

Pete

Quote from: Jimboot on December 04, 2015, 04:40:40 PM

You really should retract your false claim that you have not abused people in this forum in the past 12 months. Not sure why you are trying to deceive us. I think you need to make an apology to everyone here for making such false claims.  You should also take all our rubbish out, iron our clothes and do other chores around the house for being so misleading.

Thanks for the big omission on your part acknowledging that I did not commit slander.  I suppose you would "break" if you actually acknowledged it.  I do not abuse people on this forum and I am quite certain that many people have read me over the past 12 months and they know that to be true.  I make a conscious effort to be civil.  So, I stand by what I said, period.  You keep digging yourself into a deeper hole as you continue to make that pitch, and we can't forget that you openly threatened physical violence on me.  It's time for you to stop.  The last part of your posting is just a bizarre train wreck.

The winners here are the people that are now wiser and understand that Robert Murray-Smith presented junk data.  It's up to him to correct his error if he wants to gain credibility.  That is what this thread is all about.

Quote from: PIH123 on December 04, 2015, 07:47:10 PM
MH, Obviously, you should do nothing of the sort.

Between you and TK, you are the principal ones not afraid to tell the truth.

Notice, no one EVER refutes your claims. They just don't like the way it was delivered.
(mostly because it turns their beliefs upside down)

Pete

Pete,

Thank you for the support.  It happens often enough that you can get demonized around here when you are just trying to educate and convey the truth.  I am not perfect by any means, but I am honest and I am quite certain that many people can sense the veracity and the desire to do good in my statements.  Speaking up for logic and common sense is a good thing.  It's problematic to see the disciplines of science and engineering and the integrity associated with those disciplines get trashed like we saw in the example just discussed in this thread.  Especially when the person presenting the junk data appears to be "beyond reproach."  But alas, sometimes bridges collapse and when that happens you find out why and prosecute and convict those that failed in their duties, as it should be.

The measurement of the electrical energy output of a device is not "open to interpretation" and this is one of those things that is cast in stone.  If people don't play by the rules, then bad things happen like planes crash and buildings collapse.  And there is indeed a connection between tragic events like that and presenting junk data.  The crash of the Mars Climate Orbiter is another example that comes to mind.

Thanks again for your support.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on December 04, 2015, 11:58:39 PM
Thank you for the support.

It has nothing to do with support.
I don't know you.

But I do know, after reading your posts, that the B Type EESD is not what it portrayed to be.

This website is mostly for entertainment for me.
I arrived here when I was looking for a way to create my own circuit boards.

Good fun since then.


But I will say, that I hope when someone types "B Type EESD" into google, the first hit they get is this thread on OU.com
If they are looking into that or RMS or SunVault and read this thread, they may take pause.
And that is mostly thanks to you, but also to me and anyone else posting here recently, including JimBoot.

Same goes for the dead QEG and Waynes Zydro etc


Pete

Well this thread is no longer about RMS's measurement errors--it's now about who is right and who is wrong--who said what to who,and who insulted who.

So being of a neutral party,i am going to brave the waters,and put my 2 cents worth in.


MH was putting forth his disagreement toward RMS's conclusion and test method's used to compare the energy capacity per volume of weight of his EESD to that of a Li Ion battery. All was good,but then the trouble started. The following two posts were made by Jimboot (who i consider to be an FE friend-this is where the neutral party thing comes in),Jimboot is an FE friend,and MH is some one i hold great respect for.

Quote Jimboot post 4 to MH- :Are you suggesting his measurements are wrong? Or methodology erroneous?
Quote Jimboot post 13 to MH :I'd follow RMS before you MH. No offence but RMS has been very generous with his time and info over the years and always up front whilst encouraging others. Not a slight on you but rigorous support for this bloke. To cast aspersions anonymously says more about you than him. I don't about over there but over here 0.62 is not a penny stock. They are 152% up on the year so I think their investors would be very happy.


Jim-when you said-I'd follow RMS before you MH,this reads to me also that you believe RMS's measurements over that of what MH has stated. The fact is,MH is absolutely correct in every thing he has said,and so that means that i would believe in what MH has said,over that of RMS-as RMS's test made no comparison what so ever between his EESD to that of the Li Ion batteries energy capacity per weight volume-->and RMS's video was all about doing just that. As you said Jim- I think their investors would be very happy. So RMS and his company associates deliver this kind of data to there investor's,but the data is both incorrect and misleading in every way. Remember,this is other peoples money they are playing with here,so honesty and accuracy are foremost,and that video was anything but.

I reread the entire thread again before making this post,and i can say that MH held his tongue long after others started letting there's flap.

So the fact remains.
RMS's EESD seems easy to make,safe,and holds a good deal of energy for what it is,!BUT! in no way did RMS do any sort of energy storage per weight volume comparison test between his EESD and the Li Ion battery-->and that is exactly what RMS tried to portray--he tried to put forth the idea that the EESD held more energy per weight volume than that of a Li Ion battery.

So all of you that think MH is incorrect with what he has to say about RMS's test--you better think again,as he (MH) is 100% correct-->again.


Brad

Quote from: tinman on December 05, 2015, 12:32:11 AM
.
.
.
Brad

This post is one of the most important in the history of this website for anyone looking for OU.

Coming from Tinman (the most likely to achieve) who may have something and is willing to listen to arguments.

And in support of the most likely person to make those arguments.
(sorry, did I say it was not about support)


Pete

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 05, 2015, 01:02:02 AM
And now show me what you have built or invented ?

Following the script to the letter.

First question the number of posts and why they are at an OU website in the first place.
Next comes anonymity.

Number 3, you just nailed above.

Want hints for 4 onwards ?
4. Paid industry troll
5. Lot's of swearing
6. threaten to beat him up
7. bring up unrelated stuff such as PI is not equal 3.1416

For 8 onwards, read any 400 plus page threads.

Pete

Quote from: MileHigh on November 30, 2015, 01:36:49 AM...Tinman is in the same boat for the capacitors as far as I am concerned...

Quote from: tinman on December 05, 2015, 12:32:11 AM
...MH is some one i hold great respect for...

Not trying to ruffle feather but the two seemingly contradictory quotes have me wondering if perhaps your trifene video was another teaching aid on how easily, people like myself, can be dupped? A simple yes or no will satisfy my curiousity.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 04, 2015, 11:22:32 PM
Thanks for the big omission on your part acknowledging that I did not commit slander.  I suppose you would "break" if you actually acknowledged it.  I do not abuse people on this forum and I am quite certain that many people have read me over the past 12 months and they know that to be true.  I make a conscious effort to be civil.  So, I stand by what I said, period.  You keep digging yourself into a deeper hole as you continue to make that pitch, and we can't forget that you openly threatened physical violence on me.  It's time for you to stop.  The last part of your posting is just a bizarre train wreck.

The winners here are the people that are now wiser and understand that Robert Murray-Smith presented junk data.  It's up to him to correct his error if he wants to gain credibility.  That is what this thread is all about.

I have shown you several times in this thread where yo have been abusive to me and others. I won't post it again, you and I obviously have very different ideas of what is civil For instance "your FOS" most people would consider abusive language. Once again you think I care about the calculations. I do not.


Brad. - I say I would follow RMS before MH as he builds and encourages others and he is generous with his time. I have never heard him say anything bad about anyone. MH on the other hand, posts are littered insults and abuse. WHich is of course why he was banned. NOt because he was "defending" himself. He's in denial and now claims I threatened physical violence. I suggested he repeat those insults to my face but knew he would not.


Now we have a  nonsensical claim that somehow RMS YT channel will be used to encourage investors. It is not under the company umbrella, it's his personal channel. IT'S NOT AN INVESTOR PRESENTATION! There's a difference.


I think the investors will be very happy as their share price is up 150% on the year. Pretty good. That was in response to MH claiming they were a "penny stock" and that RMS was trying to deceive. Which is by MH own definition, slander. He wont be sued though as they would have to show damage.


Pete, nice to meet you. If you look back in this thread you will see I said exactly what you said. I have no problem with MH knowledge, it is the way he delivers it. I have said he behaves like a coward. Calling people names and being abusive from the cover of anonymity. Then he makes claims he has not abused anyone over the last 12 months. I was pointing out his inconsistency of claiming others make "falsehoods" but so does he. To put RMS in the same category as QEG? Really? No my mum did not christen me Jimboot lol. This is me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GWnKGyo38 I'm the one sans hair.


Once again I will restate. I have no issue with anonymity. I do have an issue when it is used in the way I have described above. All I have ever asked is that we treat each other with mutual respect. MH obviously disagrees and believes he should be able to call people names.


I think MH should remain anonymous. I honestly think that the amount enemies he has made here would be a good reason to do so. (i'm not one of them) It'd be nice though if he could work a little bit harder at being civil. You are what you publish.

Quote from: MagnaProp on December 05, 2015, 01:53:48 AM
Not trying to ruffle feather but the two seemingly contradictory quotes have me wondering if perhaps your trifene video was another teaching aid on how easily, people like myself, can be dupped? A simple yes or no will satisfy my curiousity.

This quote from MH-(Tinman is in the same boat for the capacitors as far as I am concerned...) was an incorrect belief that my video was some sort of measurement video-which it was not. In that video(in all the triphene video's) i show only a run time on a non specified amount of energy within the capacitor. The 2600F capacity is a close guess as to what the capacity is when the cap is fully charged. This was estimated against run times,volt and amp readings over time using a known 100 farad cap. When both caps were charged to the same voltage,the triphene cap would run the same load 26 times longer than the 100 farad cap. So the quick and dirty calculation for capacity was 26 x 100--this i already stated some post back.

Quotewondering if perhaps your trifene video was another teaching aid on how easily, people like myself, can be dupped?

No,the only time that happened was when things took off faster than i could get the last of the 3 video's up explaining what was going on.It was about how easily the akula 1 watt LED job could be made to look like it worked-and the video's did just that.But because it was about the akula device,people went balistic on it,and the next day after work when i checked my youtube and forum's,it spread like wild fire. So the first two were removed,and the 3rd was uploaded explaining how easily it could be done.
Lesson learned on my behalf,and any replication i do of fake devices like the akula rubbish from now on,will be one video showing how it was,and can be faked. It was ment to help people out,but it backfired,and i got a kick in the pants--shit happens.

The triphene cap is real,but not without it's problems that i cant seem to solve-like the low amount of charge cycles i can get before the cap just fails,and the fact that the two plates have to be squeezed hard together for best performance. So i have passed the mix on to a few people,and i believe they are still experimenting with it.

Brad

Jimboot:

I will tell you again, I am not abusive and insulting and I make a conscious effort to be civil.  And I am human and imperfect too.  You have been playing a game of "attack the messenger to draw attention away from the message" and it's enough now.  Don't threaten physical violence on me again.

QuoteThat was in response to MH claiming they were a "penny stock"

Here is a definition of a "penny stock" - "a common stock valued at less than one dollar, and therefore highly speculative."  Now take a look at the attached chart for Sunvault Energy and observe how they are a penny stock and as of now they have no price to earnings ratio.

So it's time for you to stop your nonsense.  I am not the issue here, the issue is that a person that is working for a company in a technical capacity, where that company pitches better batteries, clearly showed that he is apparently incapable of measuring the energy content in one of his own batteries.  Any reasonable person can decide for themselves if he is clueless of if he is not clueless and has other motivations.  Either way, the clip is a lie and he has been informed of this fact and as of December 5, 2015 he has not retracted his false claims and taken the clip down.

MileHigh

MH You posted Simon Derricutts response earlier. He did not accuse RMS of anything or was disparaging in any way. He was polite.  Do you see the difference?

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 05, 2015, 08:42:06 AM
To the Mile High club ... Your doing it again ? Accusing someone of a crime an illegal act yet wrong or right on the numbers is not the question its how you have chosen to attack someone that can not defend himself ... He may be wrong but he may also be right ? But forget it as the man is coming forward by your demands ! So what if he is wrong but I am here to say that a battery can in fact be completely recharged if the conditions are made and set for that to happen... Now stop the digging and looking for research that can not be defended as you can never be the police man the judge the jury the executioner. STOP IT SON ! Its a waist of time !

Now I demand an end to looking for free energy and lets all get on and build it ........ My job in life is building a mega watt free energy system for as little money as possible and I do have a few good options to chose from but at the end of the day its going to the cost that determines the end designe and product.

These are my options ......

1 Negatively charged coils

2 Electron propagation

3 Magnetic vacuums

4 Gravity converters

5 Unified field oscillators

6 Radiant ambient energy

7 Covalent bond frequency convertors

8 Kinetic atomic expansion

9 Solar energy storage

10 combinations off all the above .....


Now I have isolated them all ........ hahahhaha Have you ?




























   

9 is the only device that is real. The rest is your wet dream babble.

You still need help.

Quote from: tinman on December 05, 2015, 05:22:43 AM
...No...The triphene cap is real...

Sounds good. Thanks for all the info on it. You do some of, if not the best, work around here. I respect your decision to give the triphene mix to those you have chosen and thank you for the info you do provide to us on your designs.

Quote from: tinman on December 05, 2015, 05:22:43 AM

The triphene cap is real,but not without it's problems that i cant seem to solve-like the low amount of charge cycles i can get before the cap just fails,and the fact that the two plates have to be squeezed hard together for best performance. So i have passed the mix on to a few people,and i believe they are still experimenting with it.

Hi Tinman

Sounds like you have a lot going on with your triphene cap. I don't know the 11 secret herbs and spices but you mention that one of them is some type of crystal structure (epson salt or  Rochelle salt etc)  and the required pressure as well as the self charging aspect all reminds me of the crystal cells we all made a few years ago. perhaps you have a galvanic reaction between two metals (graphite is metal)  with a salt compound under a lot of pressure.  With the crystal cells if your plates were not thick enough corrosion would create a hole in the metal, If it was not under pressure it stopped working, two much pressure they cracked and stopped working, discharge them they charge back up again.

If I didn't know better I believe what you have invented is a  combo crystal battery  and super capacitor  (graphene, dielectric separator and an electrolyte)

The measurement issue for Brad's capacitor and RMS's capacitor claim is equally important as the issue just covered for the battery.  Simple demonstrations where a capacitor will power a small DC motor powering a fan or extrapolations from some other set of data will not cut it.

In this RMS video he claims that he has made a supercapacitor the size of a credit card that's 2000 Farads:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mno-XDP2o2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mno-XDP2o2c)

Yet he makes no measurements to back up the claim.

Here is what I said to him on that clip:

<<<
It all sounds pretty amazing.  In theory you could use solar panels to pulse charge the supercapacitor bank and at the same time have a boost converter/inverter to draw power from the capacitor bank to produce mains power to power your house.  You could have a battery bank to tap into as a last resort when the energy in the capacitor bank gets too low.

I haven't watched many of your videos, but if I could make one request it would be to do some clips where you make serious measurements on the size of your supercapacitors.  Something like a resistor to discharge the supercap and then record voltages and times and then crunch the numbers to determine the capacitance.  Anecdotal demonstrations where you power a motor can only go so far.

Honestly, I think it would be amazing if a solar panel/supercap/inverter system could meet the needs of say 90% or more of a typical home's energy requirements.  If we drastically reduce the need for chemical batteries and the problems of disposing of chemical batteries it would make for a cleaner renewable domestic energy system.
>>>

After a second request he started to balk and get upset and then he lost his cool and started calling me nasty names.  Then he presumably regained his composure and deleted all of his comments.  This was on a Laserssaber supercapacitor clip.

Here is the main comment I made to him:

<<<
+Robert Murray-Smith What I know is that I asked you on your channel to make measurements of the capacitance to back up your claims and you flinched there also just like you are flinching here.  You made a serious technical mistake with your tap charging of your supercapacitors and you would not admit to it and instead of thanking me for politely pointing out the issue to you,  you denied it and subsequently deleted all of my comments.  So you seem to have some issues.

A Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads.

The onus is on you to prove that is true - that your credit-card-sized capacitor is 2000 Farads because right now I do not believe it.

Apparently you are making the assumption that people don't want to see you make measurements to back up your rather fantastic claims on YouTube.  I can assure you that many people do indeed want to see you back up your claims with measurements.

You attract attention from free energy enthusiasts and that field is rife with people making fake claims and enthusiasts that almost never ask the basic questions that should be asked.  2000 Farads in a form factor roughly the size of a credit card does not smell right to me so I am asking you to back up your claims with credible, honest, and open measurements.  Yet you are flinching and trying to be dismissive of my perfectly legitimate request and also trying to use deflection by trying to impugn my character.  Why don't you just make measurements and back up your claims like any person building supercapacitors should be happy to do?
>>>

Anyone making home-brew supercapacitors needs to make a serious attempt to make a measurement of the capacitance.  It would be nice to see people do this with a bare minimum of diligence, like for example making three measurements and then averaging out the results.  What would be much more impressive would be to see people make measurements on their capacitor by two or even three different ways.  Also, the "ESR," the equivalent series resistance, for any capacitor is extremely important and they should try to measure that also.

MileHigh

Did you copy the whole conversation? Or just those couple of comments? It would be good to see the whole thing in context.

I can only show half of the conversation:

Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith What Lasersaber, Tinman, and you need to do is make credible measurements of the capacitance of your home-made supercapacitors.  Are you competitive with what is commercially available or not?  Is your energy density competitive with what is commercially available or not?  I looked at one of Tinman's clips and his claimed Farad capacity and what was shown in the clip was not credible. You three gentlemen need to make open, honest, and credible clips where you precisely measure the capacitance of your capacitors.  Are you guys really onto something, or can anybody go onto Digikey and order supercapacitors that outperform your home-brew supercapacitors? We are talking about the difference between anecdotal demonstrations of what the supercapacitors can do vs. getting serious and making real measurements.  >>>

RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>

Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertMurraySmith) It's not about convincing me, rather it's about convincing yourself that you are onto something.  There are several ways to measure the value of a capacitor.  I suggest that you research them and then make a clip showing your measurements.  Building a capacitor and measuring the value of the capacitor go hand in hand.  It does not have to be a scientific paper, just a good informative clip so that your viewers will benefit from it. >>>

RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>

Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertMurraySmith) No Robert, it's a perfectly sensible thing to say.  You are building a capacitor, and you should make a measurement of your device.  It's as plain as day.  I am sensing that you might not know how to do it.  Just Google it, learn about how to go about it, and then do some experiments.  >>>

RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>

Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith What I know is that I asked you on your channel to make measurements of the capacitance to back up your claims and you flinched there also just like you are flinching here.  You made a serious technical mistake with your tap charging of your supercapacitors and you would not admit to it and instead of thanking me for politely pointing out the issue to you,  you denied it and subsequently deleted all of my comments.  So you seem to have some issues. A Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads. The onus is on you to prove that is true - that your credit-card-sized capacitor is 2000 Farads because right now I do not believe it. Apparently you are making the assumption that people don't want to see you make measurements to back up your rather fantastic claims on YouTube.  I can assure you that many people do indeed want to see you back up your claims with measurements. You attract attention from free energy enthusiasts and that field is rife with people making fake claims and enthusiasts that almost never ask the basic questions that should be asked.  2000 Farads in a form factor roughly the size of a credit card does not smell right to me so I am asking you to back up your claims with credible, honest, and open measurements.  Yet you are flinching and trying to be dismissive of my perfectly legitimate request and also trying to use deflection by trying to impugn my character.  Why don't you just make measurements and back up your claims like any person building supercapacitors should be happy to do? >>>

RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>

Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertMurraySmith) You are collapsing under your own weight and your obvious phony pretense - if you were real you would be pleased to make a credible, honest measurement of the capacitance of your devices.  >>>

His last comment was quite nasty, so presumably afterwards he regained his composure and then deleted all of his comments.  I questioned his ability to make the capacitance measurement because in his "tap charging" clip he "tap charges" his sample supercapacitors, which presumably have a maximum voltage of under three volts, by connecting them directly to a bench power supply set to something like 18 volts.  One more time, that is an almost insane thing to do if you are supposedly technically competent.  I politely told him that he might damage his samples like that and "punch a hole" through them because of the serious potential to over-voltage them and he balked and refused to acknowledge that there could be a problem.  This discussion was also deleted shortly afterwards by RMS.

@MileHigh

QuoteMe:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith What Lasersaber, Tinman, and you need to do is make credible measurements of the capacitance of your home-made supercapacitors.

Do you see any problems with the method I used in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqw8nwqyg4g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqw8nwqyg4g)[/size]


I cannot speak about Robert's or Tinman's capacitors because I have never tested them.  I have not yet come close to anything like 2000F in a credit card size.  Like I told Stefan in the comments on the watt hour test video about my homemade caps "I did the test but it was less than 1 watt hour if I remember correctly.".  I am also concerned that any measurements we give before going through a few hundred cycles could have a larger margin of error.


-LS

Quote from: lasersaber on December 06, 2015, 10:15:46 AM
@MileHigh

Do you see any problems with the method I used in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqw8nwqyg4g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqw8nwqyg4g)[/size]


I cannot speak about Robert's or Tinman's capacitors because I have never tested them.  I have not yet come close to anything like 2000F in a credit card size.  Like I told Stefan in the comments on the watt hour test video about my homemade caps "I did the test but it was less than 1 watt hour if I remember correctly.".  I am also concerned that any measurements we give before going through a few hundred cycles could have a larger margin of error.


-LS

I think agreeing on a standard measurement test would be good and Watt/Hour is pretty reasonable.  I like your little Watt Hour meter. There are a bunch of Arduino projects out there for these.  Problem is any test someone does is up to the honesty of the person performing the test. Maybe a super cap challenge with a prize (some bitcoin or something for the folks who like to stay anonymous).  Say 1000 cycles 2000F measurements 5mm * 85mm * 55mm and everyone sends them off to an independent person to test.

Yes, I think that is a pretty good real-world test.  Just be careful with one thing, when you say "amp-hours" I am not sure where in the setup you are making that reference.  It would be prudent to state the associated voltage.  Of course your meter measured watt-hours also, so you are covered.   Note if the caps are 2600 farads then it's 433F@15V.

If I may ask a small favour of you, it would be to take your data and work it back to determine the value of an individual capacitor.  You have the start and end voltage, and the number of joules of energy expended, so using E = 1/2 CV-squared you can determine the capacitance.  The big question is this:  Will your measured capacitance be in line with the stated capacitance of the Maxwell supercapacitors?

You notice the remarkable difference in volume of your commercial supercapacitor at 2600 farads as compared to the RMS claim of 2000 farads in a credit-card-sized capacitor.  I am making the assumption that the RMS device is also comparable in voltage to the Maxwell supercapacitors, somewhere just shy of 3 volts.  Hence the volume comparison is valid.

Beyond that, what experimenters need is a viable way to measure the value of a single device not using an invertor and light bulb load and watt-hour meter, etc.  Not to detract from your perfectly valid test, but there needs to be a simpler test using standard stuff that most experimenters have on their bench.  The most obvious one is to connect a load resistor.  However, considering the relatively low voltage and very large capacitance, I am not sure if that is necessarily the best way.

I mentioned that some kind of test for the ESR would be a good thing to do, but I also forgot to mention another very basic parameter that needs to be discussed.  The percentage of voltage loss after 24 hours is another critical parameter.  Knowing the self-discharge rate is important depending on the application.

Finally, people have also mentioned the long term durability over multiple charge-discharge cycles which is a longer-term test that obviously is very interesting.

Anyway, I think it's great that people can make their own home-brew supercapacitors.  This stuff was unimaginable in the 1980s.  I leave it up to the builders to invent their own methods for testing their supercapacitors.  I have some ideas but I don't want to spoon feed people stuff.  Nor can I verify the viability of my ideas.  However, a supercapacitor is just a capacitor and it should be very feasible to come up with your own measurement protocol.  It would be great if you measured the capacitance in two different ways to see if they correlate.

MileHigh

How about a musical interlude and at the same time we can give 93 a troll-a-gasm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD5engyVXe0

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 05, 2015, 11:56:17 AM
Tin man Don't get wet about me son you know what that does to metal hahahahha

 



Stick to these rules and we have a deal ............ I will licence you and anyone else who agrees to these protocols or I will just keep coming here to laugh my socks off at you guys running around in circles ....

Do you like my 01.10 = 11 WELL SON IT DOES AS 1 +10 = 11 = 1+1 =2 .... Now to you that is bonkers hahahahah but in numerological mathematics its very important ,,,,,,,,,,, 

But lets reveal what that means !!!! An electron is 2.2 trillionths the size of its nuclei and .2 is 11 times smaller to the number of its 2 ................. Lets say the primary of the number is 0.1+0.1 = 0.2 and we x it by the formula of the 11, we get 0.2x11=2.2 .. So we now see the 11 is important and it had to come from some where or do you think its all by chance the 2.2 trillionths to the size of the nuclei is by chance ???? Now lets rise the electron 1 meter off the ground and its new earth horizon is 22 miles and now we see that the 10 has become important and the ten is metric nut the electron is imperial ...........

This means that the electron what is a construct of 2.2 trillion X Y particles is divided into 1.1 + 1.1 hahahhaha and this is 1+1+1+1=4 and represents the 4th dimension and is another numerological constant of the electron .... Now we have constructed the electron and it is now 1 metre above the ground with its earth horizon at 22 miles . What does that mean ? well it very important if we want to finally work out where the electrons position is at any given moment in time and space as I don't do uncertainty principles... So lets look again at we have found !

We have fond these numbers 1  10  11  2.2  4 =  1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 4 = 12 ....... hhahahaha now we have found the first 12 note chromatic octave of the electron and its numerological constant its imperial and metric relationship .  And from this I determine that the electron can occupy 2.2 trillion positions over 2.2 trillionths of one imperial second divided by infinity .  So what is infinity ? Lets now move away from the universe at 2.2 trillion miles and look back at the universe but we will need a very powerful eye to see the universe as it will appear to be no bigger than an electron hahahahahhaha

And if we were accelerating at the same speed as the so called inflation of the universe the universe would not look any different no matter how long we keep looking at it ........ So if we step out side of the universe where would we be ???? We would in fact arrive in the 5th dimension as there is no time or space there and all what we see as big here its all very small in the 5th dimension ...

Now we can begin to fully study the electron as we now have finally isolated it hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaah Now take up the wager sir stop the insults and lets rock this planet before we all fall off hahahhahahahaha or your all mouth and no TIN HAHHAHAHA LOL

QuoteNow you don't understand it so you attack it ! But a simple proof confirms it and to that we and I do mean we the ones who know stand by it ............... Now the proof ....... First I challenge you with a wager £1 Gentleman's bet . But No matter what I say It will be you that has to run the test and pay up the money hahahhahah ....

And here you sit,typing away-->in stead of making billions on your wonder machine's.

QuoteNow you don't understand it so you attack it ! But a simple proof confirms it and to that we and I do mean we the ones who know stand by it ............... Now the proof ....... First I challenge you with a wager £1 Gentleman's bet . But No matter what I say It will be you that has to run the test and pay up the money hahahhahah ....

Not likely.
I have spent enough money disproving poppycock devices.
Your the one with the bright idea's,and wild claim's-so you spend the money,and make one of your unicorn devices,and then come show us all how it works. :D

QuoteNow which of the 9 do you contest ? Negative charged coil ? Magnetic vacuum ? Harmonic response of the 5th ? Unified field oscillator ? Electron propagator ? Green light resonator ???? Radiant ambient generator Is it an education you require ? hahhahahaha thats cheep for only a £1 hahhahahah

Negative charged coil= bollocks
Magnetic vacuum= Magnet in space ???
Harmonic response of the 5th--sounds beethoven
Unified field oscillator-oh please ::)
Electron propagator=microwave oven?.
Green light resonator= drag race at the traffic lights ;D
Radiant ambient generator--> bedini pulse motor running at room temperature lol.

Educate us all-->build and show.

QuoteWhat about my free energy megawatt generator hahahhahahahaha government funded technology hahahahhahahahahahah I rock the ATOM and master the art of free energy ! With me son the delivery is finite secure reality .... Tel you dumb stupid government what you have told me hahhahahahahah

Sure Ted ;)

QuoteSo you are in the land of the yellow brick road and the emerald city with the greater wizard ! And no doubt the wizard of OZ is your master hahhahahahahhahahahahhahahaha Is it not a better I dear to shut up and learn and develop a technology that can save thos planet from the dreaded heat death it is now facing or is it a better option to talk shit and throw stones at the answer only to run round in circles with a straw man and a gutless lion hahahhahahahahaha

Sure-it would be much better for all of us if you got of the computer, and went out and save the world :D

QuoteBut who is the wicked witch that stole a 5th of all your money ??????????? Come on son !!!! Do the right thing get back into your lab and finally masseur what it is that you have been looking for all these years ... .. hahahhaha Or is the tin man so wet he has rusted the only chance he has left to finally meet the wizard that is me hahahhahahahhahahahahhahaha

Oh dear haha,you have been eating the grass in stead of smoking it.

QuoteFirst the anti ageing and cellular regeneration YOU WILL NEED IT than the lab tests ......... But there must be a firm agreement and no matter how much shit talk you throw at me the protocol must never be defeated or a evil Muslim ISS terrorists may have it .....

???

QuoteI clearly state what ever the secrets are should be keep secret and we just sale the energy in advanced on the global futures markets as a global energy bond  deal sold 10 years in advance ............ OK SON !!!

First-i am no son of your's. If i was,i'd go into hiding.
You go get that stock market haha--knock em dead. ;)

The rest i cannot even be bothered with-enough time wasted.

  So much crap!!
   Give yourselves a proper treat, good 'phones essential.
I'm not clever enough to do link but....
YouTube  Fingal's cave Mendelssohn.
  93rd. could be one of the brightest here...."harmonics".

  Space bubble baths and the free universe, Michio Kaku.....YouTube.
Found it! My connection is poor to say the least, I can get the 'Tube if
it happens to be my lucky day.
   Part of this country is under-water today, farm animals marooned or
washed away,very sad.

Quote from: minnie on December 06, 2015, 06:41:30 PM


  So much crap!!
   Give yourselves a proper treat, good 'phones essential.
I'm not clever enough to do link but....
YouTube  Fingal's cave Mendelssohn.
  93rd. could be one of the brightest here...."harmonics".

To copy and paste the whole link, highlight the link from beginning to end, copy it by pressing Ctrl+C and paste it by pressing Ctrl+V. This will work for both underlined and plain text hyperlinks.

move your mouse pointer to hover over any webpage address bar in your webbrowser, and just click it once using the left mouse button.
now its highlighted.

after that you want to click the right mouse button on the right side of the mouse, and a drop down menu will appear allowing the selection of Copy.
it is now copied into your computers memory, and after you go over to this webpage here at overunity.com, you should then be able to open a new comment or edit a previous one, and then press right click again in the box you typing inside, and then press Paste, you are now able to complete these useful helpful tasks anytime. it might seem a little difficult at first though.

sorry to hear about the recent flood going on over there.

all the best


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6XAkVA7RmY

 Wow looks like MH is still trolling the forum and now youtube. Hey buddy want to know why Mr. Smith deleted your posts?


Also you mentioned errors all over the place but I have yet to see any credible evidence that there is anything of the sort going on here. Please understand this is a man who most likely is trying to work a deal with these companies. Why in gods green earth would he give you anything that you DEMAND. In the first place you have very little understanding of Super caps period. If you did you would know that the dielectric can be water based. It isn't a battery it is a very high density super cap that can be made very easily. Hence the reason he is light on information not only to keep secret but worth for a company to pay for it and also to encourage others to watch more of his videos which by the way Tell all of the information on how to make this super cap. Too bad you don't have the intellect to watch more about his path to discovery about this and learn for yourself how to make it. PSSST he tells all about it and the joke is on you really. You say this is a learning forum yet you lack the skill to even research about this and learn for yourself. What credibility you have MileHigh?. Your a joke.

Before you reply think of this MH This was a cutionary post I will not be responding to you and I don't really care what you think about me. Got it? Good....

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 06, 2015, 09:44:10 PM
Also you mentioned errors all over the place but I have yet to see any credible evidence that there is anything of the sort going on here.

See Tinmans post #114 on page 8.
http://overunity.com/16225/a-perspective-on-the-b-type-eesd-robert-murray-smith-any-issues/msg467533/#msg467533 (http://overunity.com/16225/a-perspective-on-the-b-type-eesd-robert-murray-smith-any-issues/msg467533/#msg467533)

What ? you don't trust him either.

Who would it take on this forum to tell you that there is an issue with RMS's claim ?

Kenny Wheeler ?
Joel ?
Atomix ?
Franco ?
Lawrence Tseung ?

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 06, 2015, 09:44:10 PM
Wow looks like MH is still trolling the forum and now youtube. Hey buddy want to know why Mr. Smith deleted your posts?


Also you mentioned errors all over the place but I have yet to see any credible evidence that there is anything of the sort going on here. Please understand this is a man who most likely is trying to work a deal with these companies. Why in gods green earth would he give you anything that you DEMAND. In the first place you have very little understanding of Super caps period. If you did you would know that the dielectric can be water based. It isn't a battery it is a very high density super cap that can be made very easily. Hence the reason he is light on information not only to keep secret but worth for a company to pay for it and also to encourage others to watch more of his videos which by the way Tell all of the information on how to make this super cap. Too bad you don't have the intellect to watch more about his path to discovery about this and learn for yourself how to make it. PSSST he tells all about it and the joke is on you really. You say this is a learning forum yet you lack the skill to even research about this and learn for yourself. What credibility you have MileHigh?. Your a joke.

Before you reply think of this MH This was a cutionary post I will not be responding to you and I don't really care what you think about me. Got it? Good....

in all fairness, milehigh was correct to point out something all viewers are looking forward to verifying with the development and that being not too difficult manners of demonstrations showing the resulting capacity ratings and variances.
not knowing the results, everyone will be expected to wait a little longer for those.

milehigh is not a total bastard. and his attempt to find out more on the matter was moreless deleted.
perhaps somebody was just having a bad day and handled constructive criticism less as constructive.

sunny days ahead hopefully

Jbignes5:

You are clearly in denial and so misguided that you have to invent your own make-believe story instead of dealing with the facts.

MileHigh

93, you are one of those very verbose whackadoo trolls.  When are you going to burn out already?  Your reams and reams of meaningless text get tedious and boring.  I am willing to bet you that 90% or more of the readers of this forum don't even bother reading what you post.  Electronic class clowns like you and Seychelles are a pain in the butt and get annoying after a while.  Like, you have nothing better to do with your life and your purpose here is to crank out reams and reams of meaningless text?  There has got to be something better for you to do.

   Well Atom,that's told poor old MileHigh. I must admit I could see something
like this happening, he's certainly gone over the top with the Murray Smith thing.
Atom you seem to have a bit of a Kelly streak in you going by your last few posts.
Unfortunately with the loss of MarkE,and both Koala and Poynt seeming to be losing
interest of late there's nothing much constructive to be had any more.
It's a great pity Wayne went dark,I'm just hoping he'll come up with the answer
regarding "Dark Energy",you never know!!!!

Quote from: minnie on December 07, 2015, 11:26:39 AM

   Well Atom,that's told poor old MileHigh. I must admit I could see something
like this happening, he's certainly gone over the top with the Murray Smith thing.
Atom you seem to have a bit of a Kelly streak in you going by your last few posts.
Unfortunately with the loss of MarkE,and both Koala and Poynt seeming to be losing
interest of late there's nothing much constructive to be had any more.
It's a great pity Wayne went dark,I'm just hoping he'll come up with the answer
regarding "Dark Energy",you never know!!!!

Stop this silliness.  You said myself and Tinman were missing something important about this stuff, what is it?

Scientific integrity and making proper measurements and making correct statements is an important issue.  Even in this crazy place it's an important issue.  To deny it or be dismissive of it is ridiculous.  People should not act like spineless jellyfish and sycophants.

Meanwhile I get attacked for the hundredth time, but the truth is my behaviour is not worse than just about anybody else's behaviour.  The reason I get attacked is because I stand up for understanding basic elementary electronics and that upsets people.

Meanwhile I was disgustingly and viciously and relentlessly attacked and demeaned and degraded by Synchro1 for about six months and I did not see a single voice raised objecting to that behaviour, not one.  Before that I was disgustingly and viciously and relentlessly attacked and demeaned and degraded by Magluvin and Synchro1 for a full year and I did not see a single voice raised objecting to that behaviour, not one.  Anybody that accuses me of being such a terrible person while witnessing me being attacked for a year and a half and saying nothing is morally bankrupt.  It's a ridiculous double standard based on whether or not you promote a proper understanding of electronics, and that in itself is ridiculous.

I am not the issue here and people that try to make me the issue have to face what I am stating in this thread:  A "nice bloke" that appears to be on the leading edge of battery and capacitor research is presenting junk data, absolute junk, and apparently can't make a ridiculously simple measurement, or evades making simple measurements.  What I am saying is the truth and people that try to claim otherwise are sleepwalking and spineless.  You may as well be sheep being led of to slaughter if you can't think for yourself and always succumb to some abstract irrational peer group pressure that says that almost no matter what you see when someone does a failing experiment SHUT UP.  I give Tinman a lot of credit for not being afraid to speak the truth.  Many others see the huge problems with RMS and say nothing.

This material comes from the fist half of any Electronics 101 course.  If you can't see how wrong RMS is then you can't pass the first and second quizzes in your Electronics 101 course.  Power equals volts times amps.  Energy equals power times time.  If you can't grasp that and then recognize a total fail when somebody else tries to measure the energy in a battery then you are not in the right place.

So I have not "gone over the top."  It's just the usual fight and struggle to get the TRUTH out with the fake "you're a bad guy" attack for the hundredth time because people are supposed to SHUT UP when they see cases like this.  Meanwhile the real attackers and trolls are ignored.  I will not be a mindless drone ever.

The point has been made about RMS and people can decide for themselves what his knowledge level really is and what his motivations really are.  Technically, his battery clip is an unacceptable grotesque error that you would never make after your first four weeks in your Electronics 101 class because if you did your fellow students would think you were an idiot.  He has not presented any valid test data to back up his claims for his graphene supercapacitors.  These are facts.

MileHigh

John:

Is this the "Wayne" you are referring to?  You know the one that myself and TK argued with because he was soliciting money from people (about two million dollars worth) to pitch a magical contraption replete with groaning bellows that was supposed to produce free energy by lifting and lowering water?

A good chunk of that money is presumably stolen or the people that lost all their money will have to take Wayne Travis and his wife to court to get a part of it back.  But who knows, perhaps Wayne and his wife will land their asses in prison.

When I argued it out with Wayne it's because I am a good guy, not a sheep with the subliminal message "SHUT UP" droning through my head.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on December 07, 2015, 12:16:20 PM
This material comes from the fist half of any Electronics 101 course.

Actually this is standard in basic high school physics as well.  (I know because my 16 year old daughter is currently studying Maxwells equations, James Watt etc). 

Maybe passing a basic high school physics test should be prerequisite before posting.

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 07, 2015, 04:59:47 PM
Yes Minni its all dark in here but when I am around the light is bright ! I inform now here that an infinity capacitor is now 
.
.
.
old girl or forever shut up and get out of here ASAP ............................................................ WHERE IS THE OU PRIZE ??? ?

Who among us has the guts to post saying this guy's nonsensical and sometimes nasty postings are unacceptable and you would prefer if he either switches out of character and posts like a rational person, or, if he remains in character then you would prefer that he simply stops posting because you are tired of it?

Quote from: MileHigh on December 07, 2015, 05:13:27 PM
Who among us has the guts to post saying this guy's nonsensical and sometimes nasty postings are unacceptable and you would prefer if he either switches out of character and posts like a rational person, or, if he remains in character then you would prefer that he simply stops posting because you are tired of it?

I've done it before, most recently with Hoppfield, and would do it again if there is enough reason.
Kevin Blundells gofundme begging campaign also.

But alas, it it unlikely to happen with Atommix because I don't typically read his long rambling posts.

I currently don't choose to use the ignore function, but it does take quite a lot of scrolling.

Pete

  Trouble is MileHigh you're just too boring. Virtually everything here is dreams
or drivel.
    Wayne and EMJ are confused by something as simple as their principal principle.
Old Robert Murray Smith seems to be basically a chemist,you never know he could
just come up with something. A cheap energy storage system would do the poorer
people the world of good if it could be made with available,non toxic materials.
I think we all know by now just how clever you are.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 07, 2015, 05:13:27 PM
Who among us has the guts to post saying this guy's nonsensical and sometimes nasty postings are unacceptable and you would prefer if he either switches out of character and posts like a rational person, or, if he remains in character then you would prefer that he simply stops posting because you are tired of it?

I thought he was writing a sci fi novel.  I was looking forward to the next chapter. 

Quote from: Nink on December 07, 2015, 06:13:09 PM
I thought he was writing a sci fi novel.  I was looking forward to the next chapter.

heh... If you play "The City on the Edge of Forever" backwards the time-reversed mnemonic memory circuit will play forwards and sound just like Atommix93.  Bloody amazing!

Yes, I agree multiplying volts times amps is boring.  I should form a punk band, "Klockwerk of Nature."

I agree that cheap supercapacitors made with benign materials would be great.  But you need more than a hunch.  You have to prove it, just like promising to design a brand new water pump for usage in Africa.  It has to actually get designed and built and you have to measure how much water it can pump.

MH, on an open forum, you will encounter all types, including Atommix93rdAtom1. Pay no attention to these anymore than you would pay attention to a snail leaving a trail of slime.
You are 110% (OU) correct in the analysis of the video.
Your language is somewhat stronger than mine when you express yourself, but not offensive to me. I treat 'insults' as jokes; most of the posts are just that: jokes.

Is it the reboot of the 21st century.... or a giant external hard drive???    8)

What the hal is that?

Milehigh
apparently you stepped in something on the way into this thread...
next time please wipe your feet...

How am I supposed to get this out of Stefans new Nano tweed carpets...[yeah he Buys all the new stuff]

have you had any positive response on your measurement recommendations from The claimants ??
any indications whatsoever that they are addressing this ?

respectfully

Chet

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 08, 2015, 07:27:57 AM
ELIMENTRY BASICS OF ELECTRONICS WTF ? This is free energy not electronics MH git rid of your text book son it does not work in any equation in free energy yet you search for over unity and that is totally impossible so your head is between a rock and a bigger rock . Than you use this madness to attack others who have a professional back ground and when asked to quantify your insulting attack you show a black box in a field ? Give here your equation for free energy as you keep stating how good you are at primary school maths and do not present entropy or enthalpy but just 1 amp at 1 volt with a working load of 1 watt . Your to work out how to power the load at its maximum level of infinity. You are permitted one set up charge of 2 watts and that is me being very generous and if you can not present an infinity equation than you must submit to the fact that you have absolutely no idea how to produce free energy and apologise to the 20 000 people that you have insulted throughout your life.

Avoid this simple challenge or get it wrong it will prove that you know nothing about  free energy or OU nonsense .......... The clue is in the question ! Lets see how cleaver you are ??? ??? ??? ???   
         

MH is not making claims, you are!  ???
Why not take your challenge and solve it yourself first?

Quote from: ramset on December 08, 2015, 10:02:36 AM
Milehigh
apparently you stepped in something on the way into this thread...
next time please wipe your feet...

How am I supposed to get this out of Stefans new Nano tweed carpets...[yeah he Buys all the new stuff]

have you had any positive response on your measurement recommendations from The claimants ??
any indications whatsoever that they are addressing this ?

respectfully

Chet

Of course you had to come and give it a negative spin.   Tell me, is RMS making a correct measurement or is he making an incorrect measurement and exaggerating the energy content in his sample?  If your response is the latter then tell me if I am doing a service to the community or not?

And no, RMS has ignored my comments and the comments of Tinman about this serious issue, the offending clip is still up on YouTube.

Meanwhile, how is your progress in getting a GDS water generator for testing going?

Quote from: scratchrobot on December 08, 2015, 10:58:12 AM

MH is not making claims, you are!  ???
Why not take your challenge and solve it yourself first?

Thats all MH does is make claim after backhanded claim:


"Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith What Lasersaber, Tinman, and you need to do is make credible measurements of the capacitance of your home-made supercapacitors.  Are you competitive with what is commercially available or not?  Is your energy density competitive with what is commercially available or not?  I looked at one of Tinman's clips and his claimed Farad capacity and what was shown in the clip was not credible. You three gentlemen need to make open, honest, and credible clips where you precisely measure the capacitance of your capacitors.  Are you guys really onto something, or can anybody go onto Digikey and order supercapacitors that outperform your home-brew supercapacitors? We are talking about the difference between anecdotal demonstrations of what the supercapacitors can do vs. getting serious and making real measurements.  >>>[/size]RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertMurraySmith) It's not about convincing me, rather it's about convincing yourself that you are onto something.  There are several ways to measure the value of a capacitor.  I suggest that you research them and then make a clip showing your measurements.  Building a capacitor and measuring the value of the capacitor go hand in hand.  It does not have to be a scientific paper, just a good informative clip so that your viewers will benefit from it. >>>[/size]RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertMurraySmith) No Robert, it's a perfectly sensible thing to say.  You are building a capacitor, and you should make a measurement of your device.  It's as plain as day.  I am sensing that you might not know how to do it.  Just Google it, learn about how to go about it, and then do some experiments.  >>>RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith What I know is that I asked you on your channel to make measurements of the capacitance to back up your claims and you flinched there also just like you are flinching here.  You made a serious technical mistake with your tap charging of your supercapacitors and you would not admit to it and instead of thanking me for politely pointing out the issue to you,  you denied it and subsequently deleted all of my comments.  So you seem to have some issues. A Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads. The onus is on you to prove that is true - that your credit-card-sized capacitor is 2000 Farads because right now I do not believe it. Apparently you are making the assumption that people don't want to see you make measurements to back up your rather fantastic claims on YouTube.  I can assure you that many people do indeed want to see you back up your claims with measurements. You attract attention from free energy enthusiasts and that field is rife with people making fake claims and enthusiasts that almost never ask the basic questions that should be asked.  2000 Farads in a form factor roughly the size of a credit card does not smell right to me so I am asking you to back up your claims with credible, honest, and open measurements.  Yet you are flinching and trying to be dismissive of my perfectly legitimate request and also trying to use deflection by trying to impugn my character.  Why don't you just make measurements and back up your claims like any person building supercapacitors should be happy to do? >>>RMS deleted comment:  <<<...>>>Me:  <<< +Robert Murray-Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertMurraySmith) You are collapsing under your own weight and your obvious phony pretense - if you were real you would be pleased to make a credible, honest measurement of the capacitance of your devices.  >>>His last comment was quite nasty, so presumably afterwards he regained his composure and then deleted all of his comments.  I questioned his ability to make the capacitance measurement because in his "tap charging" clip he "tap charges" his sample supercapacitors, which presumably have a maximum voltage of under three volts, by connecting them directly to a bench power supply set to something like 18 volts.  One more time, that is an almost insane thing to do if you are supposedly technically competent.  I politely told him that he might damage his samples like that and "punch a hole" through them because of the serious potential to over-voltage them and he balked and refused to acknowledge that there could be a problem.  This discussion was also deleted shortly afterwards by RMS."


Robert's only goal here is to get people experimenting and doing instead of sitting there typing away at the computer professing that they know it all.
Robert has done some incredible work, What has MH done? Might I suggest looking at MH's postings and you would see the content of those posts... If I have to I will post them all...
MH comes off as an egotistical electrical Theory bible thumper with zero innovative thoughts and only regurgitates equations he finds on the Internet with no real understanding that those theories don't hold well for REAL time electronics. Meaning his ideas are based on theoretical IDEAL  Closed situations which those theories are based on. It doesn't matter how close they come they are not real representations of what is really going on, only close approximations, with that closeness having some big gaps. One gap being that all circuits exposed to the environment are not closed systems. In that sense there are too many variables that could creep in and fudge any measurements one desires to measure. This includes that when measuring one alters the outcome just by measuring.


Again RMS's goal is to do and try to get others to do as well. If we are looking for a way to gain in this field we have to have people doing and not just sitting there spouting BS like MH and others do.


It is funny how you made this thread MH just to stir up controversy and spread fallacies that you usually spread. One being the closed theories you spout without one shred of real example that you provide. You even open this thread with a suggestion there is something amiss? Looking for others to join in your quest to put down anything you do not want to understand.


Mr. Smith does not have to put up with that and thats exactly what he does. Why because your aim is not to further understanding of the Real, it is to further the understanding you think you know, which is the IDEAL Theoretical application to unideal situations. Meh


You really have it out for people who are not bound by your Ideal Theories and you are trying to spread that virus to everyone that will listen to you. Some like Mr. Smith are not bitting and are continuing with what their goal is and that in Mr. Smiths case is to get us to open our minds and go outside of your little boxed in world.


Let me give you an example of your tactics:


Every since an elephants birth the old circuses used to put real heavy chains on the youths ankle. This after awhile teaches the youth that no matter what the chain wont let them go beyond a point. When that youth gets to the teens stage the Elephant doesn't even try to go beyond that chains reach. they now can simply tie that elephant up with a rather weak rope. Even though the elephants strength would snap that rope with ease it never attempts to break the rope because it has learned it is futile to do so from it's experience in the past. So for the rest of it's life it "knows" it isn't possible but yet if it tried just once it could be free very easily. This is your goal and these are the tactics we all see you and your ilk use on us. This is applied expertly by you in the form of sly insults and droll regurgitated "Facts" based on your weak IDEAL theories. We know what you are doing and Mr. Smith knows how to handle your kind. Deleted.

Let me give you some context to this new kind of capacitor:


http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html


In their version they are using carbon nanotubes and the density can be equal to a battery without the downside that a battery has chemically.

Has MR. Smith found a better way to make it? Hmmm.... Time will tell.

I am afraid I kinda led Mr. Smith to this point with my suggestions about crystal batteries. But the way he is being treated was not my intention. How dare you call his intentions into some kind of plot to deceive when your own intentions are to shoot down everything that comes along and deceive others with your fallacies about capacitors not being equal to a batteries density of energy capacity. Is MIT wrong then? And why did you not know about the ultra caps and their discovery? Or did you know and intentionally mislead people by not mentioning that this technology is in fact valid?

Jbignes5:

You are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that I am speaking truthfully and honestly about this situation.   With respect to your example, it's you that is the tethered elephant.  You can lie to the elephant and get away with it because the elephant has been conditioned to accept whatever BS that is being fed to it.  The only difference is that it's self-conditioning in your case.  You want to believe and like a kid at a Star Wars movie you suspend your disbelief and for two hours you are Luke Skywalker.

The difference between you and the kid is that after the movie is over the kid is back to normal and experiencing real life.  In your case, you are permanently in a state of suspension of disbelief, just like the poor circus elephant that can be held in place by a small chain and has been conditioned to jump through hoops.

The gross error being made by RMS would be readily apparent to an astute 12-year-old kid at a grade seven science fair that did a battery project.  Yet you, as a grown adult, hide behind your wall of suspension of disbelief.  You are just like the tethered elephant waiting to be directed where to go.

QuoteIt is funny how you made this thread MH just to stir up controversy and spread fallacies that you usually spread.

I never lie, period.  You just can't cope with the truth.  It's disappointing that apparently I was the only one that could spot the problem, although certainly there are several others that would spot it right away.  I wasn't stirring up controversy.  The implicit message to the experimenters was to hone your skills so you are not duped the next time a similar situation comes up.

MileHigh

 You are not speaking the truth. You are speaking your truth as I have shown your statement is not correct about batteries and ultra caps density, it is a fallacy and you are spreading it. no amount of nana nana booboo from you will turn this around. Albeit that you know zero about them there is credible evidence you have an agenda here and I believe you are stating what you know, which is far too little in this field. You are trying to stir controversial fallacies about this even when presented with proof you are wrong as I posted above in my second post after the first.

The article was from 2006 and it isn't even cost effective to do those kinds of caps but Mr. Smith might have found a way to safely and cost effectively produce non lethal battery like caps that can be made by anyone who knows how to make em.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 12:32:12 PM

Let me give you some context to this new kind of capacitor:


http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html (http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html)


In their version they are using carbon nanotubes and the density can be equal to a battery without the downside that a battery has chemically.

Has MR. Smith found a better way to make it? Hmmm.... Time will tell.

I am afraid I kinda led Mr. Smith to this point with my suggestions about crystal batteries. But the way he is being treated was not my intention. How dare you call his intentions into some kind of plot to deceive when your own intentions are to shoot down everything that comes along and deceive others with your fallacies about capacitors not being equal to a batteries density of energy capacity. Is MIT wrong then? And why did you not know about the ultra caps and their discovery? Or did you know and intentionally mislead people by not mentioning that this technology is in fact valid?

That's all great and I can guarantee you that Professor Joel E. Schindall of the MIT Energy Initiative will not fudge his numbers when he makes measurements on his ulracapacitors that are enhanced with carbon nanotubes.  If he did make that ridiculous mistake he would get his ass booted out of MIT.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 12:52:28 PM
You are not speaking the truth. You are speaking your truth as I have shown your statement is not correct about batteries and ultra caps density, it is a fallacy and you are spreading it.

You are trying to stir controversial fallacies about this even when presented with proof you are wrong as I posted above in my second post after the first.

Go ahead and show where I am not speaking the truth.

Show me the proof that I am wrong.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 12:56:40 PM
Go ahead and show where I am not speaking the truth.

Show me the proof that I am wrong.

I did show the proof by showing you that article that states that cap has the same density as a battery. Why does Mr. Smith have to do that when it is already known. Don't you think after 9 years it would have advanced beyond that density? Plus Mr. Smith is using another technique I believe that does in fact use a better storage medium but then again you ignore the proof and ask for me to prove it. You don't or won't step outside of your box and learn and thats why you have zero credibility with me and others. In fact your credibility went out the door a very long time ago. After a few thousand more posts and nothing has changed. You are the Elephant unwilling to step beyond your "Facts". Anyone can see this but you.

MH, the video is sloppy work in several ways.

I just posted this "There are two huge flaws in the way that you interpret your calculations; one is in the weighing of the active materials, the other one is in the energy measurement method of your cap." as a comment to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 01:10:08 PM

I did show the proof by showing you that article that states that cap has the same density as a battery. Why does Mr. Smith have to do that when it is already known. Don't you think after 9 years it would have advanced beyond that density? Plus Mr. Smith is using another technique I believe that does in fact use a better storage medium but then again you ignore the proof and ask for me to prove it. You don't or won't step outside of your box and learn and thats why you have zero credibility with me and others. In fact your credibility went out the door a very long time ago. After a few thousand more posts and nothing has changed. You are the Elephant unwilling to step beyond your "Facts". Anyone can see this but you.

For RMS we are discussing batteries, not capacitors.  Sorry, but a ridiculous attempt at a double bait-and-switch is a fail.  It's laughable when you try in vain to ignore the failure on RMS's part to make an energy measurement on a forum dedicated to energy research and instead point to an unrelated link.  Your argument has zero credibility.

Quote from: memoryman on December 08, 2015, 01:13:37 PM
MH, the video is sloppy work in several ways.

I just posted this "There are two huge flaws in the way that you interpret your calculations; one is in the weighing of the active materials, the other one is in the energy measurement method of your cap." as a comment to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM).

Thanks Bill.  Your comment is short and to the point and much appreciated.  Will it remain public or not I wonder.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 01:24:44 PM
For RMS we are discussing batteries, not capacitors.  Sorry, but a ridiculous attempt at a double bait-and-switch is a fail.  It's laughable when you try in vain to ignore the failure on RMS's part to make an energy measurement on a forum dedicated to energy research and instead point to an unrelated link.  Your argument has zero credibility.

It doesn't matter because he said it was a hybrid clearly in the video he also said it wasn't a strictly scientific explanation and it was an approximate with errors in both ways that should equal. It is a capacitor with battery like methods applied ie an electrolyte was used to make it more like the battery he was comparing to so again your attempt to mislead everyone is a known factor. Again you have misled yourself into think this is something it is not period.
Now lets address his deleting of your posts. Since he clearly said it wasn't a scientific analysis of the unit per say he deleted the posts that were trying to make it so and steer people away from his ultimate goal of discovery and experimentation for others to get involved with. You on the other hand are trying to make this into something it is not.
If you want to find out for yourself then simply do the experiment and then show it. show how it is wrong then prove it otherwise you are spouting your "Facts" and not what is going on.


Again this is a hybrid capacitor/battery which he clearly states and one does relate to the other. All batteries have capacitance especially the lithium ion type. So arguing that point is again misleading people...

"It's laughable when you try in vain to ignore the failure on RMS's part to make an energy measurement on a forum dedicated to energy research and instead point to an unrelated link.  Your argument has zero credibility."

His measurement clearly shows massive differences using additional nano coatings instead of the brute force method li-ion uses. Also if you haven't seen Mr. Smith isn't here, now I wonder why? Because maybe with people like you, who like to put words in others mouths and the bad behavior you exhibit by demanding that he does what you should be doing to prove him wrong. He has a product you don't. I assure you I know what they two coatings are and if you took the time to research his other videos you would know what it was too. But then again you just don't believe anything outside of your box. We know MH how you work.

My only attempt was to teach you that the construction differences between the battery and capacitor was moot knowing the nano material changes the medium to which energy is stored. Since you have written this off then leave him alone and stop trying to discredit his valid work.

I am not attempting to mislead anyone so stop saying that.  You claiming that I am attempting to mislead is in effect you attempting to mislead.

The RMS clip is a clip where he makes an energy measurement on his device.  His energy measurement is a gross exaggeration of the actual amount of energy in his device.  Therefore his claims of energy density by weight are a gross exaggeration.

QuoteAll batteries have capacitance especially the lithium ion type.

The quote above illustrates your very limited understanding of electronics.  I have had one or two technical conversations with you in the past where the same thing was apparent.

However, you should be able to understand how the energy measurement in the RMS clip is grossly exaggerated and it is all explained earlier in this thread.  That is the one and only issue being discussed.

There are many avenues of research going on for batteries and supercapacitors but that is not what this thread is about.

RMS deleting my posts instead of doing the right thing and redoing his clip is not confidence inspiring at all.  He didn't even have to redo the test itself, all of the data is right there on the two multimeters.

Jbignes5:

This is the conclusion from watching the RMS clip under discussion:  He has not demonstrated that his compounds show any advantage over the compounds used in a lithium-ion battery when using the metric of energy per unit of mass.

He has not shown this yet in the clip he has a lot of swagger and makes it seem that he has demonstrated this.

And you cannot refute what I am saying.  The evidence is right there in the clip itself.

MileHigh

I won't stop saying what you are doing is misleading no matter what nana booboo you claim.


I am merely showing you that his video is trying to show others the joy he gets from experimenting and what he has learned. He never claims the numbers are spot on. No where in that video does he state that. In fact he is very clear they are approximations. Plus he cuts off the test at the end knowing there is more energy left in the hybrid unit.


The numbers he shows for the battery is what is written on the package and we all know how those numbers never quite reflect the reality of that battery anyways.

Yes batteries have a capacitance inherit to them. This is due to the plates of copper and aluminum being so close to one another. If they were shorted via the electrolyte then the battery would not even work period.

The only misleading is the claim that he has outperformed lithium-ion batteries with his compound.  It's supposed to be a measurement clip, watch it again.

You are still tied to that thin chain.  You need to wake up and break the chain.

All plates that are separated even by water are capacitors. A battery uses the chemicals in between those plates to separate charges and allow them to collect around the opposite charged plate. It is a capacitor no matter what you say.


Second is the plates on almost all of the li-ion batteries are made from copper and aluminum. Each material has an electronegative value. for aluminum it is 1.61 and copper has 1.90. Due to these values certain material like copper and aluminum must be in the correct orientation of the positive and negative terminals. This is what polarizes the battery into a biased capacitor that can increase above that spread of .29 volts. This fact creates an soft diode like effect and charging must break down that effect first to charge the material between the plates. All batteries are capacitors weather you like it or not. Just that in a battery the chemicals or material are used to increase the effect. Where do you think the electrolytic caps get their self recharge ability albeit a rather small self recharge?

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 02:27:27 PM
The only misleading is the claim that he has outperformed lithium-ion batteries with his compound.  It's supposed to be a measurement clip, watch it again.

You are still tied to that thin chain.  You need to wake up and break the chain.

Breaking the chain here:


What he did say is that for a given amount of material used he could store more in his hybrid then a lithium ion battery of more material. Pound for pound he is exactly right. Even with the rudimentary analysis he has done he shows this and given the fact that he did not discharge his hybrid fully in that video I would say that shows the errors were fully acknowledged to be his advantage in this case. You seem to focus only on what you want to see and don't think anything about the fact that the test was not fully complete when he cut off the test early due to time restraints.

Yes, he made the CLAIM but did not back it up with proper measurement or analysis.

  I see Tinman's comments are still there,bit more diplomacy required MileHigh.

Quote from: memoryman on December 08, 2015, 03:01:03 PM
Yes, he made the CLAIM but did not back it up with proper measurement or analysis.

What measurement and analysys he did make was backed up by the fact that he disregarded the excess energy still stored in that hybrid capacitor. And even given that his numbers still come out on top. Now lets mention the cost to produce each. Now we have a problem Huston. pound for pound his setup will always win because his methods of production vastly outweigh the costs of lithium ion. And that is a winner in my mind. Not only that is the benefit that his design as shown is not poisonous to us or the environment.... Can lithium Ion claim that?


And by the way in all courts that I have known it isn't the burden of proof on the claimant it is the burden of proof on the accuser. You make a claim, "he is misleading people". Then prove it or get off the soapbox. Watch his other videos about producing all the components and try it yourself. Do the scientific analysis as accurately as you want and quit this crap. You prove he is misleading people! Not by looking at a video meant to inspire experimentation but actually build the thing. Otherwise he has no intention of helping trolls. And that is exactly what I see here.. MH trolling him not from doing it but sitting back and spouting BS about this and that.


The whole aim for him is to inspire others to do, not talk crap behind his back. If there is no valid concept here for you then move on and let it go. Is it wrong of him to inspire others to have fun while experimenting and doing the experiments? No way.. is it wrong for you and others to mock him and call him names when hes has shown what he has done? YES! It's no wonder he hasn't come to these boards. Not because he doesn't believe in these forums and technologies but because there is always a few out there that take all the fun out of experimenting and finding something of interest to inspire others to get that same excitement out of it. He wants others to experiment and yes if it comes down to it he will test it scientifically when it is appropriate ie like selling it to a manufacturer like Tesla or other companies. You and the others are not funding his work. You have nothing invested other then watching a rough video to present rough calculations to see how it stacks up to the current technology. And yet you profess he is misleading people. PROVE IT! The burden is on you not him.


If he completed the test it would have made the calculation more in his favor yet you guys don't understand that do you? Even with that and even if he missed the mark by 50 percent or even 70 it still would have been better then the lithium ion battery with way less material used and all of the safety the materials he uses provides.

  Lets look at a similar device the lithium ion capacitor:


"A lithium-ion capacitor is a hybrid electrochemical energy storage device which combines the intercalation mechanism of a lithium ion battery with the cathode of an electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC). The packaged energy density of an LIC is approximately 20 Wh/kg generally four times higher than an EDLC and five times lower than a lithium ion battery. The power density however has been shown to match that of EDLCs able to completely discharge in seconds.[1] The negative electrode (cathode) often employs activated carbon material at which charges are stored in an electric double layer that is developed at the interface between the carbon and the electrolyte.


The positive electrode (anode) was originally made with lithium titanate oxide, but is now more commonly made with graphitic carbon material to maximize energy density. The graphitic electrode potential initially at -0.1 Volts versus SHE (standard hydrogen electrode) is lowered further to -2.8V by the intercalation of lithium ions. This process step is referred to as doping and often takes place in the device between the anode and a sacrificial lithium electrode. The pre-doping process is critical to the device functioning as it can significantly affect the development of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase layer. Doping the anode lowers the anode potential and leads to a higher output voltage of the capacitor. Typically, output voltages for LICs are in the range of 3.8–4.0 V but are limited to a lower voltage of 1.8-2.2Volts. If the voltage is brought any lower lithium ions will deintercalate more rapidly than they can be restored during normal use. Like EDLCs, LIC voltages vary linearly adding to complications integrating them into systems which have power electronics that expect the more stable voltage of batteries. As a consequence, LICs have a high energy density, which varies with the square of the voltage. The capacitance of the anode is several orders of magnitude larger than that of the cathode. As a result, the change of the anode potential during charge and discharge is much smaller than the change in the cathode potential.


The electrolyte used in an LIC is a lithium-ion salt solution that can be combined with other organic components and is generally identical to that used in lithium ion batteries.


A separator prevents direct electrical contact between anode and cathode."


"Batteries, EDLC and LICs all have their own properties, which make them suitable for specific applications. The lithium-ion capacitors have a higher power density as compared to batteries, and LIC's are safer in use than LIBs, in which thermal runaway reactions may occur. Compared to the electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC), the LIC has a higher output voltage. They have similar power densities, but energy density of an LIC is much higher.


The Ragone plot (figure 1), shows that the lithium-ion capacitor combines the high energy of LIBs with the high power density of EDLC's.


Cycle life performance of LICs is much better than batteries and is similar to EDLCs."


Omg what did it say?


"""""""""""""The lithium-ion capacitors have a higher power density as compared to batteries"""""""""""""""""

Omg the sky is falling....

So maybe he is onto something without the use of lithium and lithium ions for current boosting. Just maybe he has a novel idea that worked. And worked way better then using toxic chemicals and exotic metals.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 02:57:51 PM
What he did say is that for a given amount of material used he could store more in his hybrid then a lithium ion battery of more material. Pound for pound he is exactly right. Even with the rudimentary analysis he has done he shows this and given the fact that he did not discharge his hybrid fully in that video I would say that shows the errors were fully acknowledged to be his advantage in this case. You seem to focus only on what you want to see and don't think anything about the fact that the test was not fully complete when he cut off the test early due to time restraints.

No, in fact RMS has not proven anything because his measurement is a total fail.  He is just measuring current flow without accounting for the voltage associated with that current flow.

Pound for pound he has proven nothing and his conclusions are exactly wrong.

I will repeat to you that a 12-year-old that is very astute and is interested in batteries and electronics would not make that gross error.  Yet you have a grown man making a ridiculous mistake in that clip and the mistake is indefensible.  So you are just wasting your time in the face of incontrovertible evidence that his measurements are dead wrong.

You simply cannot make a mistake like that.  You can't in good conscience present junk data.  Or can you?  Look at all the YouTube comments congratulating him and how nobody here spotted the problem.

At this point you just want to be argumentative to push your own personal agenda.  "Those nasty people that insist you read the data on your multimeters and analyze it properly."  Yes, you have to read the data on your multimeters and analyze it properly with no exceptions at all.  Yes, you have to account for the voltage when you are making an equivalent ampere-hour measurement with no exceptions at all.

You are making "Bizarro World" arguments but the problem is this is not a Superman comic fantasy, this is real life.  You have nothing Jbignes5, nothing.

please look above your post for the proof that li-ion batteries have a lower power density of the li-ion caps.

Obviously you are not an experimenter and have nothing to bring to the table but your bible thumping. DO IT or shut up! Put up or get out of the kitchen. Build it, the burden of proof is on you not him. He made the claim and now it is your job to prove it with a real experiment, not some drivel you are harping on. The ball is in your court. It will be interesting if you could even be smart enough to figure out how he made it. Trust me it is all there in previous videos made by him.


Do it or face the consequences that you are nothing but a bible thumper and troll.


The reason why no one spotted a problem but you is because you are making a problem out of nothing. Thats why no one here spotted it either "chicken little". They all know about what he is doing because he has shown his work in many many videos. He has explained on more then 3 or so videos that his goal is to get people working in this area. Thats the main goal. When you have many many people working on a problem it gets many many new views of that same problem. Plus he wants people to do the work. To see that this stuff needn't be that complicated. It is you who is making this into something it is not. As a general comparison he attempts to show that it is better both in the materials that makes it and the environment which is getting heavily polluted with this kind of stuff. But i digress. Prove him wrong. Not by calculation but by a video made by you showing it isn't right with your scientific mathematical proofs done the way you like. Otherwise let it go. See a troll is exactly what you are doing and hence why you got deleted posts because you seem to think you can demand things from people. You say because he is ignoring you that he doesn't want to face this and that couldn't be further from the truth. He wants people to see that this stuff can be done easily and safely to encourage others to think and yes maybe prove him wrong. Not by mathematical BS but by example. Show your example and maybe he will forgive you and answer your demands. Thats all he wants. For you to do it if you think he is in error. Not by armchair watching a video but by doing the experiment to learn just how easy this is.


By the way how does it feel for someone to demean and demand you to produce evidence?


Come on smarty pants show us your skills of the real and not some mathematical construct you worship.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:11:00 PM


Obviously you are not an experimenter and have nothing to bring to the table but your bible thumping. DO IT or shut up! Put up or get out of the kitchen. Build it the burden of proof is on you not him. He made the claim and now it is your job to prove it with a real experiment, not some drivel you are harping on. The ball is in your court. It will be interesting if you could even be smart enough to figure out how he made it. Trust me it is all there in previous videos made by him.


Do it or face the consequences that you are nothing but a bible thumper and troll.

Listen to me.

To measure the energy in a battery you measure voltage times current times time.

RMS measuring the energy in his battery by incorrectly measuring current times time.

He is missing the voltage measurement which BY DEFINITION you CAN NOT ignore.

Let that sink into your head.

It is that bad, and that is not "bible thumping."   You have nothing, and the RMS clip should be taken down and redone.  He needs to make more accurate mass measurements for the active compounds and he needs to actually do the energy measurement properly.

Based on my very preliminary estimate, there is a decent chance that he does not have any advantage at all over a lithium-ion battery when it comes to energy per unit mass for the active compounds.

QuoteAnd by the way in all courts that I have known it isn't the burden of proof on the claimant it is the burden of proof on the accuser.

Wake up, this is science and the burden of proof is on the claimant.  That is the most tired cliche in the realm of free energy;  "Prove that my over unity device does not work."

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:11:00 PM
please look above your post for the proof that li-ion batteries have a lower power density of the li-ion caps.

Obviously you are not an experimenter and have nothing to bring to the table but your bible thumping. DO IT or shut up! Put up or get out of the kitchen. Build it, the burden of proof is on you not him. He made the claim and now it is your job to prove it with a real experiment, not some drivel you are harping on. The ball is in your court. It will be interesting if you could even be smart enough to figure out how he made it. Trust me it is all there in previous videos made by him.


Do it or face the consequences that you are nothing but a bible thumper and troll.


The reason why no one spotted a problem but you is because you are making a problem out of nothing. Thats why no one here spotted it either "chicken little". They all know about what he is doing because he has shown his work in many many videos. He has explained on more then 3 or so videos that his goal is to get people working in this area. Thats the main goal. When you have many many people working on a problem it gets many many new views of that same problem. Plus he wants people to do the work. To see that this stuff needn't be that complicated. It is you who is making this into something it is not. As a general comparison he attempts to show that it is better both in the materials that makes it and the environment which is getting heavily polluted with this kind of stuff. But i digress. Prove him wrong. Not by calculation but by a video made by you showing it isn't right with your scientific mathematical proofs done the way you like. Otherwise let it go. See a troll is exactly what you are doing and hence why you got deleted posts because you seem to think you can demand things from people. You say because he is ignoring you that he doesn't want to face this and that couldn't be further from the truth. He wants people to see that this stuff can be done easily and safely to encourage others to think and yes maybe prove him wrong. Not by mathematical BS but by example. Show your example and maybe he will forgive you and answer your demands. Thats all he wants. For you to do it if you think he is in error. Not by armchair watching a video but by doing the experiment to learn just how easy this is.


By the way how does it feel for someone to demean and demand you to produce evidence?


Come on smarty pants show us your skills of the real and not some mathematical construct you worship.

Please answer this.. Answer all of this without skirting around the issue....

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 04:27:35 PM
Wake up, this is science and the burden of proof is on the claimant.  That is the most tired cliche in the realm of free energy;  "Prove that my over unity device does not work."

In the first place he doesn't claim overunity so please stop making this what it isn't....

Ok so what is peer review to you?

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:34:54 PM

Please answer this.. Answer all of this without skirting around the issue....

Listen to me again.

Power = voltage x current.

Power is NOT "current."

It is the most fundamental basic concept that all energy research and analysis is based on.

Do you agree with this or not?

You can't be so ignorant that you would not agree with the above statement.  Therefore you also agree that Robert Murray-Smith made an unacceptable error.  You have no choice but to agree with me if you agree that power = voltage x current.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:35:26 PM
In the first place he doesn't claim overunity so please stop making this what it isn't....

You need to work on your English comprehension.

No my comprehension is just fine. You meant to belittle this forum by that statement.

How about you comprehend my post about what is peer review... Funny how you didn't respond to that.... Also I am an electronic technician that fixes devices that break almost on a daily basis. I am a real world technician. Not some high paid engineer that has no idea about real world applications of a circuit, for which you apparently are. This is your problem, instead of reading my post you picked out one grammatical error and stopped there. You didn't read a thing after that because you are locked into a dead end logical fallacy that is tripping you up. I made a frigging grammatical error excuse me troll. I went back and fixed it.. Now please give me the meaning of peer review.


Now how do you get peer review in this situation? AHA, Just do it! Then you have all the proof you need and this would end immediately but keep going the way you are going and all you will get is proving me right that your only goal is to troll anything anyone put down in this forum or on youtube. How self important are you...

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:45:37 PM
How about you comprehend my post about what is peer review... Funny how you didn't respond to that.... Also I am an electronic technician that fixes devices that break almost on a daily basis. I am a real world technician. not some high paid engineer that has not idea about real world applications of a circuit, for which you apparently are. This is your problem, instead of reading my post you picked out one grammatical error and stopped there. You didn't read a thing after that because you are locked into a dead end logical fallacy that is tripping you up. I made a frigging grammatical error excuse me troll... Now please give me the meaning of peer review.


Now how do you get peer review in this situation? AHA, Just do it! Then you have all the proof you need and this would end immediately but keep going the way you are going and all you will get is proving me right that you only goal is to troll anything anyone put down in this forum.

Peer review has nothing to do with this.  It's beyond the scope of what we are discussing.  But if that clip was subject to peer review it would be crucified.

You are just ragging on about your own agenda.  If you are an electronic technician then you should also see how dead wrong this clip is.  I am fully aware about the real world of electronics.  Like I said, if you agree that power = voltage x current then you agree that RMS's clip is junk.  You simply don't have any other choice.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 05:03:49 PM
Peer review has nothing to do with this.  It's beyond the scope of what we are discussing.  But if that clip was subject to peer review it would be crucified.

You are just ragging on about your own agenda.  If you are an electronic technician then you should also see how dead wrong this clip is.  I am fully aware about the real world of electronics.  Like I said, if you agree that power = voltage x current then you agree that RMS's clip is junk.  You simply don't have any other choice.

No you are peer reviewing his video and subsequent device. You are saying he made errors without doing the work to check it in your theoretical dream world where there is no .006 only 1's. It is being reviewed by anyone that sees it and you somehow took up the mantle to be his troll didn't you? You did this by A: Trying to ruin his video by your comments and B: By taking this to an outside forum and starting a thread to troll him from afar. You make claims he is doing this and that, well until you prove it, both to your self and us, then your credibility is moot on this. He doesn't have to do the experiment your way he only has to present what he thinks is going on. If he doesn't supply all of the information then maybe you need to prove he was doing it wrong, not by mathematics but by actually doing the experiment and showing where he went wrong. Oh thats right you just type you don't actually do anything for real....

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:45:37 PM
No my comprehension is just fine. You meant to belittle this forum by that statement.

How about you comprehend my post about what is peer review... Funny how you didn't respond to that.... Also I am an electronic technician that fixes devices that break almost on a daily basis. I am a real world technician. Not some high paid engineer that has no idea about real world applications of a circuit, for which you apparently are. This is your problem, instead of reading my post you picked out one grammatical error and stopped there. You didn't read a thing after that because you are locked into a dead end logical fallacy that is tripping you up. I made a frigging grammatical error excuse me troll. I went back and fixed it.. Now please give me the meaning of peer review.

You didn't make a "grammatical error."   I was simply drawing a parallel between the "classic" inversion of the burden of proof that you see on the forums all the time and your particular inversion of the burden of proof.  You didn't catch that.

There is nothing tripping me up and you can crank out another 10,000 words and nothing will have changed.  You are fully aware that power = voltage x current, and energy is power x time.  Now go look at RMS's clip and what do you see?  There is nothing more to say.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 05:10:36 PM

No you are peer reviewing his video and subsequent device. You are saying he made errors without doing the work to check it in your theoretical dream world where there is no .006 only 1's. It is being reviewed by anyone that sees it and you somehow took up the mantle to be his troll didn't you? You did this by A: Trying to ruin his video by your comments and B: By taking this to an outside forum and starting a thread to troll him from afar. You make claims he is doing this and that, well until you prove it, both to your self and us, then your credibility is moot on this. He doesn't have to do the experiment your way he only has to present what he thinks is going on. If he doesn't supply all of the information then maybe you need to prove he was doing it wrong, not by mathematics but by actually doing the experiment and showing where he went wrong. Oh thats right you just type you don't actually do anything for real....

If you are a bench technician you should see the problem right away.  Look at the voltages on the multimeter, what do you see?

It's not about "my way" - there is only one way to measure the energy output of a battery.  Do you agree with that statement or not?

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 05:10:51 PM
You didn't male a "grammatical error."   I was simply drawing a parallel between the "classic" inversion of the burden of proof that you see on the forums all the time and your particular inversion of the burden of proof.  You didn't catch that.

There is noting tripping me up and you can crank out another 10,000 words and nothing will have changed.  You are fully aware that power = voltage x current, and energy is power x time.  Now go look at RMS's clip and what do you see?  There is nothing more to say.

Yeah I know I corrected that but I couldn't go back and fix it because it timed out to edit it...


Also you are making a claim right? If so then lets stop all this sniper like activity and do it right. Build the simple device and check for yourself then make a video like he has done and post it to youtube. Otherwise anything said to the contrary is moot. You are claiming he didn't do it right. Prove it the right way! Don't just say it do a video and provide the proof of the experiment. Get a li-ion battery of the same size. Cut it apart and dissect a small section to equal the same area as the device in question. Make the device like he shows and do it the right way. I know Robert would be ok with it if you didn't use just words. His goal is to get you out of the theoretical fallacies and into the real world of experimenting. Until you do, Robert and others wont listen to you, they know your reputation of all talk and no action. Nothing.. not even a valid test from you. I mean who would listen to that?

I don't think you would ever do such a thing because there is a possibility he might be right and if he is you are wrong. But thats the problem with nay saying.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 05:21:47 PM
Also you are making a claim right? If so then lets stop all this sniper like activity and do it right. Build the simple device and check for yourself then make a video like he has done and post it to youtube. Otherwise anything said to the contrary is moot. You are claiming he didn't do it right. Prove it the right way! Don't just say it do a video and provide the proof of the experiment. Get a li-ion battery of the same size. Cut it apart and dissect a small section to equal the same area as the device in question. Make the device like he shows and do it the right way. I know Robert would be ok with it if you didn't use just words. His goal is to get you out of the theoretical fallacies and into the real world of experimenting. Until you do, Robert and others wont listen to you, they know your reputation of all talk and no action. Nothing.. not even a valid test from you. I mean who would listen to that?

The "insanity talk" is getting tedious.  RMS is not accounting for the voltage in his battery energy measurement.  The data is a fail and so I don't have to consider it any more.

All of the necessary data in in his clip right now.

Why don't you go look at the clip and do the manual energy integration yourself, use five or 10 second intervals, your choice.  Then convert that into equivalent amp-hours at 3.8 volts and let us know how much RMS is exaggerating his numbers by for our enlightenment.  I know that it's junk data and so I don't want to bother doing the manual integration to show how junky it really is.  You are so hot on it, why don't you do it?  Just don't forget to give us an error tolerance on the number also.  I would be very curious to know how bad it really is.  How much is he exaggerating?  Or perhaps somebody else reading can perform the manual integration for our enlightenment.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 05:33:00 PM
The "insanity talk" is getting tedious.  RMS is not accounting for the voltage in his battery energy measurement.  The data is a fail and so I don't have to consider it any more.

All of the necessary data in in his clip right now.

Why don't you go look at the clip and do the manual energy integration yourself, use five or 10 second intervals, your choice.  Then convert that into equivalent amp-hours at 3.8 volts and let us know how much RMS is exaggerating his numbers by for our enlightenment.  I know that it's junk data and so I don't want to bother doing the manual integration to show how junky it really is.  You are so hot on it, why don't you do it?  Just don't forget to give us an error tolerance on the number also.  I would be very curious to know how bad it really is.  How much is he exaggerating?  Or perhaps somebody else reading can perform the manual integration for our enlightenment.

So now you want others to prove it for you.. Man just delete this thread and get lost. I mean really you claim he is doing something yet you want others to do it for you to find out.. Just delete the thread and get over it already. The tedious part is your responses with the failed calculations. Yet you don't know a damn thing about those values. Then you ask for others to do it for you. Wow.

RMS responded to Memoryman's posting and it's not good.

Memoryman:  There are two huge flaws in the way that you interpret your calculations; one is in the weighing of the active materials, the other one is in the energy measurement method of your cap.

RMS:  fair enough - thanks for that. - though i wasn't measuring energy rather capacity

What the hell is he meaning when he says measuring "capacity?"  That's a meaningless statement.  For a battery, "capacity" means "energy capacity."

The man is not looking good on this at all.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 04:40:32 PM
  You have no choice but to agree with me if you agree that power = voltage x current.

Even if you forgive the fact he didn't include the 1.69V to 0.35V in 240 seconds versus a sustained 3.6V for 3600 seconds  (that is worse case usually 3.7V to 3.8V for Li-Ion but he did not measure) we still have a another major gap. The other major gap was he didn't allow for total time.  He was comparing his EESD cell going from  178mA to 31mA in 240 seconds versus a sustained 44mA (actually 44.23mA he rounded 1150/26 down?) for 240 seconds when he should have compared to 3600  seconds as the  Lithium Ion battery cell would continue to run for an hour not 4 minutes. 3600 / 240 = 15 times longer.  Now add the voltage aspect back in and he was out by a factor of 28.  ie he needs  to have approx 28 EESD cells to every Li-Ion cell so he would need 28*26 =728 EESD cells to = 26 Li-Ion cells to deliver 3.6V at 1150mAh.

This is an additional 702 EESD's Cells to deliver the same power as the Li-Ion Battery.

He will also need an appropriate circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 1150mA @ 3.6V.

In terms of weight the EESD is 1g for active material but this did not include the weights of the separator, cathode, anode and electrolyte for for the EESD versus the Li-Ion. Since we don't know these weights all we can say is we need to add the total weight of 702 more EESD + a circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 3.6V 1150 mA to the comparison.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 05:39:04 PM

So now you want others to prove it for you.. Man just delete this thread and get lost. I mean really you claim he is doing something yet you want others to do it for you to find out.. Just delete the thread and get over it already. The tedious part is your responses with the failed calculations. Yet you don't know a damn thing about those values. Then you ask for others to do it for you. Wow.

When you recognize the data is junk, then you move on.   There is no point in proving how junky it is.  I made a rough estimate that he is exaggerating his energy calculation by somewhere between 5X and 8X, and then you throw in the tolerance of +/-25% for the weighing of the materials.  That is the proper preliminary analysis and you can then move on.

You are the one that is pushing the issue.  So you crunch the numbers, if you really can, or get lost yourself.

The failed calculations are in the RMS clip - he is broadcasting his failure to all that care to watch his clip.

No it isn't what you think. He doesn't like all the attention for you guys and I mean that your group of like minded bible thumpers.


I shall post this again, egads...


His device is a hybrid capacitor.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_capacitor


And you are misleading him to think otherwise now with your cronies...


It is not a battery but a mix of the two technologies.

Quote from: Nink on December 08, 2015, 05:43:57 PM
Even if you forgive the fact he didn't include the 1.69V to 0.35V in 240 seconds versus a sustained 3.6V for 3600 seconds  (that is worse case usually 3.7V to 3.8V for Li-Ion but he did not measure) we still have a another major gap. The other major gap was he didn't allow for total time.  He was comparing his EESD cell going from  178mA to 31mA in 240 seconds versus a sustained 44mA (actually 44.23mA he rounded 1150/26 down?) for 240 seconds when he should have compared to 3600  seconds as the  Lithium Ion battery cell would continue to run for an hour not 4 minutes. 3600 / 240 = 15 times longer.  Now add the voltage aspect back in and he was out by a factor of 28.  ie he needs  to have approx 28 EESD cells to every Li-Ion cell so he would need 28*26 =728 EESD cells to = 26 Li-Ion cells to deliver 3.6V at 1150mAh.

This is an additional 702 EESD's Cells to deliver the same power as the Li-Ion Battery.

He will also need an appropriate circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 1150mA @ 3.6V.

In terms of weight the EESD is 1g for active material but this did not include the weights of the separator, cathode, anode and electrolyte for for the EESD versus the Li-Ion. Since we don't know these weights all we can say is we need to add the total weight of 702 more EESD + a circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 3.6V 1150 mA to the comparison.

I think you are missing something here.  Even though he considered the cell to be "effectively discharged" over 240 seconds with his "triangle" simplification, he then took his "fake energy" or "fake ampere-240-second" calculation and then stretched it out over a full hour by dividing by 15.  So if you "forget" his atrocious ignoring of the voltage discharge curve for his device, he did generate a "correct" "fake ampere-hours" number.

MileHigh

Trying deflection will get you nowhere Jbignes5.

Interesting thanks OK doing math again.

He goes from 300 joules to 10.8 joules in 240 seconds. His average joules (lets give him straight line) is 82.3
Li-Ion sustains 160 joules for 3600 seconds.
82.3*240= 19752 joules per hour
160 * 3600 = 576000 Joules / hour
576000/19752=29 * times more power

Sorry I underestimated he actually needs 29 * 26 cells = 754 cells to 26 Li-Ion Cells.

Spread sheet is here.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit#gid=0

It's not a deflection, the two are vastly different and comparing them isn't an easy thing. Did you read the link or not MH? My guess is not because if you did you would see the difference. Plus I think this version of his device is much different but not until someone makes a pound for pound device meaning equal material weight of ACTIVE components then any comparison is rather hard to do. That I will admit because given his comparison it would be like the comparison of Li-ion battery to a Li-ion capacitor which both do exist and the cap is far superior to the battery. Especially for vehicles from speed of charging ,charging cycles and toughness and environmental aspects as well as cost to make.


So kudos to you for putting that down and shaming him into capitulating to you and your cronies. Good job...


Again this is a hybrid capacitor and not a battery like you think it is.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 06:14:11 PM
It's not a deflection, the two are vastly different and comparing them isn't an easy thing. Did you read the link or not MH? My guess is not because if you did you would see the difference. Plus I think this version of his device is much different but not until someone makes a pound for pound device meaning equal material weight of ACTIVE components then any comparison is rather hard to do. That I will admit because given his comparison it would be like the comparison of Li-ion battery to a Li-ion capacitor which both do exist and the cap is far superior to the battery. Especially for vehicles from speed of charging ,charging cycles and toughness and environmental aspects as well as cost to make.


So kudos to you for putting that down and shaming him into capitulating to you and your cronies. Good job...


Again this is a hybrid capacitor and not a battery like you think it is.

It doesn't matter what the device is, it can be treated like a black box.  You track three variables associated with the black box, voltage, current, and time.   RMS only tracked current and time.  That's the huge problem, I will not repeat it again.  If you don't acknowledge this then there is no hope for you.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 06:14:11 PM

Again this is a hybrid capacitor and not a battery like you think it is.

He calls it a B EESD The B standard for battery. The other device is a C EESD the C stands for Capacitor.   RMS was the one comparing it with a battery. 

Quote from: Nink on December 08, 2015, 06:13:29 PM
Interesting thanks OK doing math again.

He goes from 300 joules to 10.8 joules in 240 seconds. His average joules (lets give him straight line) is 82.3
Li-Ion sustains 160 joules for 3600 seconds.
82.3*240= 19752 joules per hour
160 * 3600 = 576000 Joules / hour
576000/19752=29 * times more power

Sorry I underestimated he actually needs 29 * 26 cells = 754 cells to 26 Li-Ion Cells.

Spread sheet is here.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit#gid=0 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit#gid=0)

Nink, I have to run off and do things so I can't check it now but think I see some problems with your text above.

>  He goes from 300 joules to 10.8 joules in 240 seconds. His average joules (lets give him straight line) is 82.3

I am not sure where you are getting the "300 joules" from.  The real way to do it is to slice the output up into vertical slices of say 10 seconds each.  You take the middle voltage and current measurement for each slice and multiply by 10 seconds to get a small amount of energy.  Then you add all of the energy values together and then take that total energy over 240 seconds and then divide by 15 to "spread it out" over one hour.  Then you take that associated average power and convert it into equivalent amp-hours at the nominal lithium-ion battery voltage of 3.6 to 3.8 volts, take your pick.

I think a straight line might be too much simplification.  If your volts and current decay in a straight line, then when you multiply the two together you do not get a straight line anymore.  So the average is probably less than you are thinking.

MileHigh

 It does make a difference if the device is not made to a standard and done in a real production way. It was an off the cuff test device that was not perfected like the already established and tested device to which he was comparing it to. It makes a huge difference to the quality of the material like separators and electrolyte like he said. Because of the water it has a terrible voltage cap. Meaning off gassing of the water as it gets electrolyzed in the process. Thats a big limitation and is the very reason they used non aqueous electrolyte in the li-ion battery. This limits the charging ability of the plates and due to the amount of substance be so great it limits the charge it can hold.


Again pay no attention to the link about the differences of li ion batteries and Caps. Seeing that it is clear what those differences are it does make a huge difference and a big difference as well.


See you rely on your cronies to do everything for you not one bit was done by you and this is my point. You are not a doer and certainly not an experimenter. You just like bashing others until they capitulate. saying some really awful stuff about people when you know nothing about them. You fling put down after put down instead of doing the work. I mean you couldn't even do the calculation yourself, how nice.

Jbignes5 I stand by everything I say and you are a fool for ignoring the obvious - RMS is making an almost-beyond-belief mistake of not accounting for the output voltage of his device when making an energy measurement.  And don't you try to impugn my character.  You are just bashing me because you know that I am right and you can't admit it.  You are no better than the long list of free energy fakers that are trying to sucker money from people by making false claims.  Ask yourself how small struggling tech companies raise new funds.  It's a rhetorical question for you to ponder.

You couldn't even do the math. I mean really? You had to get someone else to do it for you. Really? What a joke. I'm not ignoring the obvious. Anyways how do you know if it was wrong if you didn't have the math right there? Ahh thats the caveat.


Listen MH I will Tell you again like I told you before. Treating others with respect will get you a lot further then the way you bash people. What you have said right in your last statement is exactly my point! Prove that I'm a faker. Prove that I have scammed anyone out of money. You can't and I win again. Again you have shown your true colors and I don't reward indignant people with apologies. You bash and you fake your way through everything. I mean refer to my first statement here. This proves you are the sham, you are the faker and since you hide behind the great name of MILEHIGH you are the scammer. So high you head is swooning with logical fallacies and faking the ability to produce any work at all. Not one thing. Not even a patent. NOTHING, but drivel regurgitated formulas not knowing that your version of energy is invented and only a response and not the initiator. Someone makes a simple mistake and it is the end of the world. The end of your world. Sorry but new technology is here. It is being developed without your input and yes even if there are simple mistakes it doesn't invalidate the work being done.

Yes the video was about measurements which he admits were not scientific or exact right from the beginning. But the whole point to his videos is to watch them all from the beginning to know his methodology and inspiration to do and not armchair discovery. The main part was to show how simple he could make the caps and goes through that process but my guess is that the whole process is invalid because he made one little mistake. By the way his super capacitor is the same as the li ion cap I showed many times just with more natural materials and less poisonous chemicals. Obviously that doesn't make a difference to you. So when he comes out with his stuff I am sure you will think he is scamming people and not buy his device to store energy. You will cut your nose off to spite your face because maybe he made one little mistake, wow. But somehow is smarter then you who didn't come up with his ideas.


Your so ignorant of the way you come off to people. I mean really your form is sub par and so irritating to most that they just give up on this forum. You are effectively driving people away from this forum and reducing our chance to rescue this planet from the likes of you, who would rather go with poisonous materials in all the products we produce and stale old current drinking electronics. I bet you have a stake in the energy field. You must have a stake in the energy field and this forum is your way to keep value in a technology that is not sustainable in the least but you are heavily invested in. You tout that real starting businesses are loosing funding to scammers and free energy fakes and while I think there is a bit of truth to that "A BIT" you say it to garner support for your poor attitude with people on this forum. A comment was said about you trying to use more diplomacy but there is no such thing with you. If it says free it has to be a scam right? Yet the sun continues to shine and the trees continue to grow and stars continue to twinkle all for free. Our views are changing in the field of energy, get used to that. There is a shift away from current twords the potential that runs it all.


My hope for you is that you learn there is a better way to deal with people ands not all people are trying to scam others. Some actually want to help others get into this field into all of the fields and treating those people like they have no right to dignity while doing so is teaching exactly what the establishment wants you to do. Ignore everything no matter if there is a valid device or not. And thats what you do. You don't get paid by the "man" You are the "MAN". You are the reason we all are here searching for some path out of this hell you have created and are profiting on. Most people just want to live. Not to be worrying about how to feed their families or how to pay for energy. I mean if everyone had a stream behind their house who would need you? Who would be reliant on you to tell them the rules and where they could go and what they could do. You are the reason we are dying as a world. You shun the very thing that could save us all because you are living off everyone else and your cronies are doing the same. Even if this forum was the reason for you being here, why would you waste the time or effort to blow a fuse in your nut? Why would you be that interested in something you declare is a scam? Why bother at all? It's called self interest and the only self interest that will drive some one like you is a monetary fervor.


I also hope you understand why I pushed like I did. It was to show others of your intentions and the length you will go both in insults and eluding to crimes that have not been committed and that is what motivates others to fight with you. Your attitude to others is not helping in the least and maybe just maybe you would see that now. But I highly doubt you would self reflect in such a way. It would mean you need to reasses your tactics and change your approach to people.

It infuriated you that Robert deleted your posts and came here to shirk his attempt to say hey move on then. You can't do that can you. You can't let others be and let them go down their own road even when it has errors which I know Robert would have corrected himself on eventually. But see you don't know him at all and didn't take one second to try to know what he is and what he knows and what his channel is about.

I did not count the clock down to zero as I really do not know what happens.  I decided to  just extrapolation his previous results (he was losing .01V and 1mA every 10 seconds just before he disconnected the clock so the best I think we can do is continue with this without additional data.  That dropped amps down to zero after 300 seconds. So this gives the EESD an extra 1095 joules per cell (avg 3.65 joules for 300 seconds). 

That gives him 19752+1095=20847 Joules per cell. so the Li-Ion at 576000/20847 is still 27.6 * more power so approx 28 EESD Cells per Li-Ion Cell or 26*28-26=back to additional 702 cells.

The only way I can think to award more power is if he charged the EESD for longer.  I am not sure why he charged it for 3 minutes maybe a charge for 6 minutes will give him twice the amount of power so he only needs half that number of cells (I don't know). 

I think the best thing at this point is for RMS to do is
1) Build an EESD with the same weight as the 3.6v 1150mAh Li-Ion Battery
2) charge the EESD to max power (as long as it takes) 
3) Let the EESD run down to zero with a known load and record amps,  volts and time.  (if it takes 2 hours that is fine just time laps every 30 seconds )
4) Repeat the same experiment with the Li-Ion Battery. 

I don't think there is any point in measuring a single cell it is not accurate enough.  If RMS can get more Watt Hours from his cell of the same weight we can easily do the math.

Quote from: Nink on December 08, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
I did not count the clock down to zero as I really do not know what happens.  I decided to  just extrapolation his previous results (he was losing .01V and 1mA every 10 seconds just before he disconnected the clock so the best I think we can do is continue with this without additional data.  That dropped amps down to zero after 300 seconds. So this gives the EESD an extra 1095 joules per cell (avg 3.65 joules for 300 seconds). 

That gives him 19752+1095=20847 Joules per cell. so the Li-Ion at 576000/20847 is still 27.6 * more power so approx 28 EESD Cells per Li-Ion Cell or 26*28-26=back to additional 702 cells.

The only way I can think to award more power is if he charged the EESD for longer.  I am not sure why he charged it for 3 minutes maybe a charge for 6 minutes will give him twice the amount of power so he only needs half that number of cells (I don't know). 

I think the best thing at this point is for RMS to do is
1) Build an EESD with the same weight as the 3.6v 1150mAh Li-Ion Battery
2) charge the EESD to max power (as long as it takes) 
3) Let the EESD run down to zero with a known load and record amps,  volts and time.  (if it takes 2 hours that is fine just time laps every 30 seconds )
4) Repeat the same experiment with the Li-Ion Battery. 

I don't think there is any point in measuring a single cell it is not accurate enough.  If RMS can get more Watt Hours from his cell of the same weight we can easily do the math.

I agree but he has done that already, well the company that he sold the tech to did. He was just doing this to get the word out and a subject to teach people about the excitement of experimenting. It wasn't a class to figure out the correct method to determine the charge since he didn't have a full cap to compare fairly.


If you will I have another video that explains his reasoning for doing his videos and yes that means this video too.

Here is a good video of the subject of super caps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVjymF9Ow1w

Jbignes5:

Who are you to demand that I jump through hoops for you and make useless measurements when there is no point to doing that?  You came here in a huff and needed to burn off a lot of negative energy.  Do you feel better now?  Technically, all you really did was make yourself look like a fool.  Get your act together and stop this fantasy-land denial of the facts.

You stop impugning my character right now.  I said RMS made a huge blunder, a gaffe, an outrageous error, because it was an outrageous error.  If you don't like it, tough luck for you, some strong words are perfectly justified in this extreme case.  I will repeat to you:  Stop impugning my character.

I was doing RMS a favour letting him know about his error.  If he had any sense, he would have removed the clip and done a new one.  Do you know the famous story of the TED Talk where they let this Rodin coil guy come and give his spiel?  People were very angry about that and this second-tier TED Talk group got a lot of heat for letting some unknown guy get up on stage and spout off junk.  The TED Talk organization had to review its policies before permitting people give a talk, it was a big scandal.  Well, if RMS went to a seminar or annual meeting of developers of advanced capacitor and battery technologies and presented the data that he shows in that clip, then his reputation among his peers would be destroyed and he might even get laughed and booed off the stage.  It's time for you to wake up and stop being a belligerent ass about the most basic electronic concepts that nobody would question.  Really, stop it now and stop making a complete fool of yourself about these basic technical matters.

You are going to have to live in the real world because there is no escape from the real world.  What I said is true and no tantrums from you and no attacks from you on my character will change anything.  Look at the end of RMS's clip where he glibly states that his compounds outperform the compounds in a lithium-ion battery and realize that the truth is that he has not proved that in his clip.  Rather, he made a mockery of his work in that clip by completely failing to make a credible energy measurement.  His peers in the research sector would be completely aghast.  No nonsensical rebuttals from you - it's absolutely true.

There are many players in the realm of researching new capacitor and battery technologies.  RMS is just one of many, and his credibility has taken a hit by that clip.  I would love to see this stuff reach production and you calling me the "MAN" is just more nonsensical foolishness from you.

Gather your wits together because your big "energy burn" in all your postings was futile and nonsensical.  Nothing has changed, and RMS has presented junk data.  Science and engineering mean something real, and crazy tirades and nonsensical technical gibberish from the likes of you change nothing.

MileHigh

Quote from: Nink on December 08, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
I did not count the clock down to zero as I really do not know what happens.  I decided to  just extrapolation his previous results (he was losing .01V and 1mA every 10 seconds just before he disconnected the clock so the best I think we can do is continue with this without additional data.  That dropped amps down to zero after 300 seconds. So this gives the EESD an extra 1095 joules per cell (avg 3.65 joules for 300 seconds). 

That gives him 19752+1095=20847 Joules per cell. so the Li-Ion at 576000/20847 is still 27.6 * more power so approx 28 EESD Cells per Li-Ion Cell or 26*28-26=back to additional 702 cells.

The only way I can think to award more power is if he charged the EESD for longer.  I am not sure why he charged it for 3 minutes maybe a charge for 6 minutes will give him twice the amount of power so he only needs half that number of cells (I don't know). 

I think the best thing at this point is for RMS to do is
1) Build an EESD with the same weight as the 3.6v 1150mAh Li-Ion Battery
2) charge the EESD to max power (as long as it takes) 
3) Let the EESD run down to zero with a known load and record amps,  volts and time.  (if it takes 2 hours that is fine just time laps every 30 seconds )
4) Repeat the same experiment with the Li-Ion Battery. 

I don't think there is any point in measuring a single cell it is not accurate enough.  If RMS can get more Watt Hours from his cell of the same weight we can easily do the math.

I will just share a few thoughts but I am just about done with this topic.

RMS opened up the lithium cell.  Instead of taking scrapings from just one layer, he could very easily have scraped say five layers of both reagents and then weighed the whole thing on one piece of paper.  Then he could have done the same thing for his own reagents.  Put scrapings from five sets of reagents onto a single piece of paper and weighed them.  His error tolerance for his mass measurements would have gone from say +/-25% to perhaps +/-3%.

I don't see any real issues in only measuring one planar cell.  You can see in the buildup of the lithium-ion cell that each layer is approximately the same, so assuming one of 13 layers will have the 1/13th the amount of ampere-hours @3.8V is perfectly reasonable.  The real problem is the accuracy of the mass measurement which I addressed above.

Then I think it would be perfectly reasonable for RMS to measure the energy storage in only a single planar cell like he shows in his clip.  There is obviously the law of diminishing returns the longer he takes his measurement, so what's the difference in going say 480 seconds instead of 240 seconds?  Beyond that, there has to be a reasonable cut-off voltage anyways.  If the voltage is always decreasing, then an "RMS battery" would have to have a small boost converter built into it and the input voltage to the boost converter can only go so low.

So, with more accurate mass measurements (a trivial amount of extra work) and a longer discharge time (but not too much longer) and actually making the proper energy measurement then you would have some decent data.

No, I don't believe that charging his cell longer would put more energy into it.  Presumably the cell was fully charged for his "failed impressive test."  On the other hand, RMS makes a strange comment that a better electrolyte would have his cell produce a higher voltage and he seems to be strongly implying more energy output.  I would question that, presumably the chemical compounds have a finite amount of energy in them and if you are outputting at a higher voltage then for the same current you draw that much faster from your energy store.

It would not be too difficult to redo the clip properly.  The current clip can be analyzed for the amount of energy in his cell but the large error margin in his mass measurements takes away from the results.

I will just repeat that my gut feel is that his recipe does not shine way above the numbers for a lithium-ion cell.  It apears like the error margins in the first clip could easily push the data such that the RMS cell under-performs compared to a lithium-ion cell.   Plus the lithium-ion cell is manufacturable and like you said, the masses of the other components of the battery are to be determined.  Not to mention the number of charging cycles performance, storage life, temperature stability, internal impedance characteristic, manufacturability, and so on.  Who knows how many millions(?) of dollars it takes to go from a lab experiment to a shipping product.

MileHigh

I attached a response to RMS, presumably it is invisible to all except myself and RMS.

I just checked and five minutes after the posting and he won't even let me see my own post.  Of course when I am on a cookie-free browser I can't see anything that I posted.

93:  You can act as crazy as you want without attacking people on this forum.  You keep on attacking people then the users on this forum will start flagging your postings and start to complain about you to Stefan.  Then you will end up with an iPad and nowhere to go.

Quote from: Atommix93rdAtom1 on December 09, 2015, 04:57:28 AM
MH detail is bias ! Forget MH ! He lives on the brain power of others to sucking up all your energy is what his true intention is ! A  vampire of the creative mind and free will ................................................................................... ! He needs mental help ! In other words he is a nutter so why bother with what he says ? The idiot in him rules his life ! He is a real  fruit and nut job a one side coin that has no worth in experimental physics ...

If you want a free energy device with no moving parts no high voltage simple to make cheep safe than you need an electron propagator 1 amp in 10 amp out at any volts you like ! And that is a small one .. If you want the next version a self generator its a little bit more complex but very real and simple to make ... MH is not interested in the advancement of free will or new logics or technology ! He only lives to argue with people and will seek to constantly attack everything that works and he demonically abuses people because he is a very sick man !

Lets move on to infinity generators and never give MH the secrets of it ! Just ignore him ! 




 

Stop talking,and start showing.
Dose put up or shut up mean anything to you ?.

 Ok Let me show you how i see this happening and what is being done.


Taking all the "strange things" out of this video like aliens listen to his talk. Listen how this man is taking on the "MAN".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHxGQjirV-c

The old guard is falling and no amount of posts here is gonna save it. The truth is out there and you only need to open your eyes and look at the Proof..


Now I'm not advocating all of his subject matter but the part about the "man" is very telling, about posters with 6k posts, who work too hard and has an agenda motivating that superior egotistical will to work so hard to invalidate this field. You indoctrinate others but saying "See, they made a mistake and we made them look like a fool.". How droll your life must be, to be so into your click that you miss the important aim of communities like this. And yes even the very creative ones. If someone is committing a crime then yes by all means take care of that situation. But if nothing other then it is dream, think bigger, Love your fellow human, treat others with dignity, and for god sakes let us go into the realm of figuring out how to live better and be better able to care for each other. Some of us are here just for that reason. Not for making tons of worthless cash but for the betterment of Human kind.


You are the kind of being we need to weed out of our community of investigators. You say you think this is a scam type atmosphere. Fine! Move along and let the buyer beware. No amount of your neo-natzism is gonna dissuade us from working in this field.


Attacking others for the simple fact that they tried to sensationalize their work in a particular field or may have an error in their math is a bit gestapo like don't you think? Your rep MH has been tarnished. Not by me or anyone else. It has been tarnished by your own and your cronies actions. Live with it, admit it, and for gods sake get off the soap box. Grow up you school playground bully. Get over it. Super caps are real. And the ones that use graphite are far superior to even batteries when you take into account the shortness of charging times and the now equal capacity. Not to mention the cycle life. Mr. Smith is a pioneer and a very smart chap.


Again science is changing and so is this field. It is morphing right in front of your eyes and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. I mean really. You come here to a free energy subject mattered forum and try to disprove it as something of a flight of fancy or scammer's tool. I assure you it is not and just because your organization of flubbarts and near do wells couldn't think your way out of a paper bag it doesn't mean we cant find the answer within this community. After all it is your fault in the first place we are now in the world that is destroyed and going down. It is your continued opinion that nothing could be free. Yet we breathe for free. Of course we have to breathe your technologies pollution of the old ways and not the clean technologies we are discovering today. It is your fault for the spot we are in, not ours.


So how do we change the world then smart "man". How do we go about evolving our society into a caring loving world to live in? How do we repair this broken world we live in today? How do we go forward, instead of suspending time like we have for the past 120 years by thinking why bother thinking at all in this field? Why bother looking for the free lunch? Why bother post 6k messages of blather about crossing the t's and dotting the I's? Why waste the effort unless there is a payout for you and your ilk? Why?

If it means we must hear things like that I have shown in this video then we must listen and validate that real events, that most of our elected officials want to know if it is real, then so be it. We are asking the questions and getting some real disturbing information back that is REAL proof there is an agenda and how to handle that knowledge. We are forming a living community that will address you and your kind.

I mean really 6k posts and all you do is fling insults and innuendos left and right to disparage people to search for the truth and use it to live better. You deny people the simple right of human dignity and trash them egotistically and mentally. The abuse here is not from well meaning people trying to inspire others to look for better ways, it is from the ones trying to squash others in an attempt to cover up the lies. And yes some of those lies are in the field of energy. You squashed Tesla and anyone who dared go outside your box and now some very highly respected scientists who will not back down are squashing you back by showing the lies and getting us back to advancing as an world entity trying to survive this hell you keep pushing on us. We will not back down and you will not win. Period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qqp3KTvL_8

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/29/news/economy/bill-gates-breakthrough-energy-coalition/

Bill Gates has pulled together a multinational band of investors to put billions into clean energy.

The Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist announced his latest endeavor, the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, at the climate change summit in Paris.

"We need to bring the cost premium for being clean down," Gates said Monday in an interview with CNN's New Day. "You need the innovation so that the cost of clean is lower than the coal based energy generation."

Lowering the cost of clean energy to make it competitive with fossil fuels is the best way to get poor countries to make the switch without sacrificing economic growth, Gates said. Clean energy can make air conditioning, refrigerators, stoves and fertilizer more affordable for poor people.

"All these things that enable to modern lifestyle are very energy intensive," he said, noting that five years from now, "I see the price of energy actually being lower than today, and that's for clean energy."

The new Gates fund will be fed by a group that spans more than two dozen public and private entities -- including national governments, billionaire philanthropists, investment fund managers and tech CEOs.

"The renewable technologies we have today, like wind and solar, have made a lot of progress and could be one path to a zero-carbon energy future. But given the scale of the challenge, we need to be exploring many different paths -- and that means we also need to invent new approaches," Gates said in a statement.

Among the list of backers are Alibaba (BABA, Tech30) CEO Jack Ma, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook (FB, Tech30), Meg Whitman of HP (HP) and Virgin (VA) Group's Richard Branson.

More than a dozen governments have also committed to double their spending on carbon-free energy development over the next five years in a complementary effort dubbed "Mission Innovation."

Twenty countries -- including the U.S., China and India -- have signed the pledge, which was announced in Paris alongside the Gates initiative.

President Obama called the Gates effort a "groundbreaking new public-private initiative."

According to government data, the U.S. spent about $5 billion on energy R&D in 2013, compared to $31 billion on health care research and nearly $70 billion on defense research.

The Obama Administration said

"Private companies will ultimately develop these energy breakthroughs, but their work will rely on the kind of basic research that only governments can fund," Gates added.

Related: Climate change will bring deadly heat to the Middle East

There is no fund raising goal for private investors in the Gates initiative. But the fund represents billions in money to seed promising ideas in large-scale clean energy production.

The fund says it will invest broadly and focus on five key areas: electricity generation and storage, transportation, industrial uses, agriculture and projects that make energy systems more efficient.

For example, Gates says more research is needed in new kinds of batteries -- "flow batteries" -- that he says hold more promise than current battery technology.

According to Gates, the goal is to spur new clean energy tech while combating climate change by "keeping global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees."

Reducing global reliance on fossil fuels also holds the potential for massive economic benefits, Gates added.

"It would help millions more people escape poverty and become more self-sufficient," Gates wrote. "And it would stabilize energy prices, which will have an even bigger impact on the global economy as more people come to rely on energy in their daily lives."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/bill-gates-expected-to-create-billion-dollar-fund-for-clean-energy.html

Bill Gates Expected to Create Billion-Dollar Fund for Clean Energy

WASHINGTON — Bill Gates will announce the creation of a multibillion-dollar clean energy fund on Monday at the opening of a Paris summit meeting intended to forge a global accord to cut planet-warming emissions, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

The fund, which one of the people described as the largest such effort in history, is meant to pay for research and development of new clean-energy technologies. It will include contributions from other billionaires and philanthropies, as well as a commitment by the United States and other participating nations to double their budget for clean energy research and development, according to the people with knowledge of the plans, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the fund.

The announcement of the fund, which has the joint backing of the governments of the United States, China, India and other countries, the people said, is intended to give momentum to the two-week Paris climate talks.

Negotiators hope to strike a deal committing every nation to enacting policies to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Mr. Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, will join more than 100 world leaders, including President Obama, in Paris on Monday to begin the talks.

If successful, the Paris meeting could spur a fundamental shift away from the use of oil, coal and gas to the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. But that transition would require major breakthroughs in technology and huge infrastructure investments by governments and industry.

Where that money would come from has been a question leading up to the Paris talks. Developing countries like India, the third-largest fossil fuel polluter, have pushed for commitments by developed nations to pay for their energy transition, either through direct government spending or through inexpensive access to new technology.

India has emerged as a pivotal player in the Paris talks. The announcement by Mr. Gates appears intended to help secure India's support of a deal.

As secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged that developed countries would send $100 billion annually to poor countries by 2020 to help them pay for the energy transition. Indian officials have demanded that the Paris deal lock in language that the money would come from public funds — a dealbreaker for rich countries.

This summer, Mr. Gates pledged to spend $1 billion of his personal fortune on researching and deploying clean energy technology, but the people with knowledge of his plans said the new fund would include larger commitments.

In a blog post in July, Mr. Gates wrote: "If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free. We can avoid the worst climate-change scenarios while also lifting people out of poverty, growing food more efficiently and saving lives by reducing pollution."

Mr. Gates met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India in September on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York. In a June meeting in Paris, Mr. Gates told President François Hollande of France that the Paris deal should include robust provisions on clean energy research and development.

"Bill's been making that point for years, and he's going to make it more emphatically in Paris," said Hal Harvey, chief of Energy Innovation, an energy consultancy. Mr. Harvey noted that at the core of the emerging Paris agreement are plans and pledges already put forth by more than 170 countries detailing how they will reduce emissions.

"If you tote up the plans, you see a very significant demand signal, and Bill wants to see that we meet that cheaply," he said.

So Jbignes5, do you think the MIB death squads are going to go after Bill Gates and kill him?

You are still talking like a complete fool and the only attacker around here is YOU.  It's time for you to shut your trap about me and deal with the issues as presented in the thread.  You can barely admit that a man making batteries and capacitors seemingly can't measure the energy in his own batteries and refuses to measure the value of his own capacitors.  That is an an issue whether you damn well like it or not.

QuoteYou deny people the simple right of human dignity and trash them egotistically and mentally.

You stop this garbage talk right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM

At 22:34 in the Robert Murray Smith clip he says, "We're still knocking the socks off lithium batteries, it's just ridiculous!"

Ironically enough, it is indeed ridiculous because his measurements and associated data are pure junk, and any electronic technician or free energy hobbyist that plays with batteries or any engineer should see this in real time as they are watching the clip.  On top of that, a preliminary analysis of the real data shows that there is a distinct possibility that he does not outperform lithium-ion batteries like he claims in the clip.  Jaws would drop if he presented that data in that clip at a conference.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 10, 2015, 04:18:40 PM
...Bill Gates has pulled together a multinational band of investors to put billions into clean energy....

He also holds patents for cooling our oceans. Sorry but the billionair club doesn't get involved unless there is gobs of $ to be made. That's how they become billionaires in the first place. As energy becomes cheaper and easier to obtain, human consumption of said energy only goes up as well making any net benefit to the environment be zero. New energy solutions with no breeding control is a waster of energy, pun intended.

Well, it's a double-edged sword, isn't it?  If there was no profit incentive then there would be no Internet, no cell phones, no flat screen TVs, no GPS, no wireless data, no online forums, no ability to call 911 if your car breaks down and you are stranded, no ultrasound scanners, no CAT scanners, no MRI scanners, no ability to collaborate with your peers in real time all around the world, no free online access to knowledge, no iPads, no iPods, no digital video compression, no mp3 music, no fiber infrastructure for transmitting high-bandwidth data, no home PCs, no four-terrabyte hard drives, no digital photography, and tens of thousands of other things that people take for granted every day.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 10, 2015, 05:26:54 PM
Well, it's a double-edged sword, isn't it?...

It sure is and the blade is sharper on the side of greed/profit. Just don't get suckered into the "save the planet" marketing scheme is all I'm saying.

If they want to cut emissions we could do it now. He has a video where they talk about the millions that already don't have access to basic electricity and water. That will not change as there is no profit in helping poor people. Clean energy will help slow down the destruction a little but not stop it. Cleaner energy will be spent on barges like the 5 hours energy billionaire wants to do in order to suck our oceans dry with desalinization devices to satisfy human consumption. Without population control we only exchange one environmental disaster for another.

China slowed down the rotation of this planet with their huge dam and I'm sure ours haven't helped. I'm not surprised the earths magnetic field had gotten weaker. Slow down a dynamo, which the earth is, and something funky just might happen. Last I heard, if you slow down a dynamo, they don't put out as much electricity/magnetic field. And the damn thing only provides 1.7% of china's energy demand which is pointless.

From ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam )...
"The dam was expected to provide 10% of China's power. However, electricity demand has increased more quickly than previously projected. Even fully operational, on average, it supports only about 1.7% of electricity demand in China in the year of 2011, when the Chinese electricity demand reached 4692.8 TWh"

You need to rethink desalination plants.  If they can be powered with clean energy then they will have zero negative impact and only a positive impact.  You can turn the desert into arable land.  There will be no problem with "sucking the oceans dry," even if you have 2000 desalination plants working, that's the part you need to rethink.

A billionaire like Bill Gates looks for balance.  He expects a return on some of his investments, and on other speculative investments or simply giving away money he does not expect a return.  I am sure many of the renewable or clean energy projects will fail to produce results, others will.

The outlook for the future is positive.  We have technical problems that can be solved and the world slowly but surely is transitioning to clean and renewable energy.  People in the Third World want access to the same energy that people in the West take for granted.  With the right technologies that can take place without destroying the planet.

These barges or what ever is floating in the sea will be powered by gas guzzlers just as they are now for the forseable future. There is already detectable levels of murcury in the ocean, enough to make you think twice before eating tuna, but thousands of barges in the ocean won't make polution worse?

A billionaire like Bill Gates gets a lot more than just a return on his investments.

We are 10 years into a global drought with no foreseeable end. Global fresh ground water is all but gone. Over population that no one is going to stop. The earths magnetic field is getting weaker and may not just be the result of a flip. Yah, we got some technical problems all right.

I'm sure people in the Third World may want access to the same energy that people in the West take for granted. The west is spoiled and consumes much more than others in terms of its population. Giving the same gluttony to third world countries doesn't exactly help the situation.

But then again overunity doesn't exist. You can't get more out of a system then you put into it. We have all been shown a magnet doing work to help make a rotating motor more efficient yet the magnet is said to be doing no work. Overunity doesn't exist and the future is bright? Up is down I guess. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

P.S.- On an unrelated note I thought I might mention that any cloud cover over the L.A. area has been a noticeable red color for at least a few months now which I have never seen before. Sometimes a little faint like tonight and other times unmistakably red. Red as in a redish pink color and it's way past sun down. I'm sure it's a minor technical issue :o

Let's imagine the year is 2035.  Suppose you have flat desert with a lot of sun and very little rain very close to the ocean shoreline.  There are many places in the world like that.  You have cheap and efficient solar cells.  You have a giant machine that takes a giant spool of solar cell panels, like a big rolled up carpet, and just lays it on the desert floor.  Work crews do a minimal amount of support work to connect cables and stuff like that as the giant machine lays the carpet of solar cells out on the desert floor.  The giant spools of solar panels are made in a factory and then delivered in the cargo holds of ocean-going supertankers or on super container ships.  Imagine over an area of say five square kilometers you lay down a carpet of solar panels.  Imagine that say 60% of the surface is solar panels when you factor in all other surface overhead.  So that means you have three square kilometers of solar panels.  The philosophy is to make a relatively low tech dumb solar cell farm with no solar tracking, no energy storage, very low maintenance, etc.  However, you have a very very large array of solar panels.

All of that power is fed to a water desalination plant on the ocean shoreline.  I am not going to crunch the numbers, but I wonder how much fresh water could be produced with a setup like that.  Enough to supply water to a population of 100,000?  500,000?

Don't be surprised if mega engineering projects like that happen over the next 25 years.  You have to think big and stay positive.

Personally I don't give much credence to global drought/global warming/global cooling, etc, etc.  The media is way too hysterical when it comes to things like that.  There was a "mini ice age" in the 19th century and we are all still here.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 10, 2015, 10:27:58 PM
...Personally I don't give much credence to global drought/global warming/global cooling, etc, etc.  The media is way too hysterical when it comes to things like that.  There was a "mini ice age" in the 19th century and we are all still here.

20 years ago global warming was a figment of our imagination and now it's a technical problem. I guess that's progress but it's that slooooow progress that worries me. I haven't heard the media say hardly a thing about the global water shortage. I've heard some about the local water shortage and how we can only water our lawns twice a week now but that's about it. I found out about the global scale of it on my own and came to the conclusion it's a little more than a technical problem. Google NASA and global water shortage and you'll get a few hits that seems factual.

Here's just one...
https://www.rt.com/news/202311-nasa-drought-world-groundwater/

"Vanishing groundwater will translate to major declines in agricultural productivity and energy production, with the potential for skyrocketing food prices and profound economic and political ramifications." from  James Famiglietti, a leading hydrologist at JPL.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 10, 2015, 10:27:58 PM
...There was a "mini ice age" in the 19th century and we are all still here.

Climate change is a technical issue and a mini ice age is not a big deal? A lot more people are on this planet now then there were during the 19th century and a lot more would die in such an ice age. Would be nice if we could help prevent it or slow it down instead of helping it along like we have been doing. Not much else to say other than that's exactly the kind of sloooow thinking that helped get us here in the first place. I suppose it's better than the other 90% that don't think at all except for wondering what the next I-phone is going to look like. Hope they start rolling out those mega solar panel arrays of yours soon. We needed them yesterday.

As for the EESD, I hope it works out or we at least learn from it.

If you recall, perhaps two years ago people were talking about "peak oil" and oil was perhaps $100 a barrel.  The "commonly accepted knowledge" was that oil would remain above $100 a barrel for five or ten years or more, and it might even hit $150 or $200 a barrel.  Everybody "knew" this.  Now oil is $35 a barrel.

Many predictions related to climate change from 10 or 15 years ago that the "commonly accepted knowledge" said were going to occur in fact never happened.  The antarctic ice sheet is very large right now.   In my opinion you need at least 100 years worth of climate data to say there is a definitive trend.  The reason for this is that the Earth is so massive, it simply takes very long time scales to be sure you are really seeing a trend.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 11, 2015, 11:18:12 PM
If you recall, perhaps two years ago people were talking about "peak oil" and oil was perhaps $100 a barrel.  The "commonly accepted knowledge" was that oil would remain above $100 a barrel for five or ten years or more, and it might even hit $150 or $200 a barrel.  Everybody "knew" this.  Now oil is $35 a barrel.

Many predictions related to climate change from 10 or 15 years ago that the "commonly accepted knowledge" said were going to occur in fact never happened.  The antarctic ice sheet is very large right now.   In my opinion you need at least 100 years worth of climate data to say there is a definitive trend.  The reason for this is that the Earth is so massive, it simply takes very long time scales to be sure you are really seeing a trend.

Even 100 years could be short if there's 40 year cycles...
https://youtu.be/QiM_gLRIuGc?t=37m17s (from 37:17 to 38:20 or so don't really need to see the whole hour)

Quote from: MileHigh on December 11, 2015, 11:18:12 PM
...Everybody "knew" this.  Now oil is $35 a barrel.

Many predictions related to climate change from 10 or 15 years ago that the "commonly accepted knowledge" said were going to occur in fact never happened.  The antarctic ice sheet is very large right now.   In my opinion you need at least 100 years worth of climate data to say there is a definitive trend.  The reason for this is that the Earth is so massive, it simply takes very long time scales to be sure you are really seeing a trend.

The oil price is down thanks to fracking or it would be high. We need a hundred years of data but that NASA link I posted shows the water table going from green to red in just 12 years? Government red tape is great at wasting years and millions of $ on studies that tell us what a child could figure out. I don't think rising sea levels are a disputable prediction anymore. If we can affect the worlds rotation for just 1.7% of a cities energy needs, I'd like to think we are capable of doing a hell of a lot more to affect this planet in a positive way than we currently are. I hope you are right but I just don't see it.

I hope to do my part soon in crushing up some Graphene and seeing how much unicorn energy can be pulled out of this place.

Final comments on Robert Murray Smith's stuff.  I finally managed to watch his second long clip.

This is the offending clip where he fails to measure the energy per unit of weight in his device by making the outrageous error of not multiplying the voltage times the current times the time to calculate the energy in his B type EESD device.

A Perspective On The B Type EESD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM)

One day later, he makes this clip:

A Perspective On The C type EESD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDvzuP72Ac (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDvzuP72Ac)

He claims victory in this clip but I am not so sure, but I haven't watched all of his videos.  My preliminary feeling is that the "C type EESD" is much closer to a chemical battery than it is to a capacitor.  If that's true, then he is comparing a chemical battery to a capacitor which is not fair.

In this second clip he encourages the viewers to multiply voltage times current times the time to calculate the energy in his C type EESD device.

So the man makes what amounts to a 180-degree about face between his "retarded" B Type EESD clip (where he proves nothing to back up his claim) and his "sensible" (but possibly skewed battery-capacitor comparison) C type EESD clip.

YES milehigh i did not want to beleave  in global warming and all that JAZZ.
UNTIL THIS YEAR I WAS in THE SEYCHELLES ISLANDS RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF
the INDIAN OCEAN..IT WAS AUGUST 2015 . I went for a snooze in mid afternoon ,then i
was awaken by staunch of dead fish. THE WHOLE BEACH WAS PILED UP WITH DEAD
FISH OF ALL TYPES..THE NEXT 3 DAYS ALL THE ISLANDS REPORTED THE SAME..3 DAYS LATER
I TOOK FLIGHT FROM PRASLIN TO MAHE AND THE WHOLE OCEAN AS FAR AS THE EYES CAN SEE
WAS BROWN BLACK YELLOW AND RUSTY COLOUR. THEN I SAID TO MYSELF WELL THE SHIT HAS HIT THE
FAN..WHEN YESTERDAY I LISTEN TO THIS MP3 FROM RENSE .COM. AND I WILL LET YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND..
PLEASE LISTEN TO THAT MP3.http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Wigington_072213.mp3

THEN THIS SHIT IS HAPPENING WORLD WIDE . EVEN HERE IN THE VERY WELL PROTECTED
COCKBURN SOUND , PERTH OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA..http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/animal-deaths-birds-fish-end-times.html

Exxon has known since 1977 from their own research. They have and continue to dump millions into spreading just enough doubt in people's minds to prevent change and we let them. Can't wait till that new I-phone comes out. It's gana be sooooo cool.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/investigation-finds-exxon-ignored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgAcUhZHdeA

he issue is not whether 'climate change' happens, but which direction and the cause.
Carefully read (~53 Mbytes)
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

The direction is not good. The cause is natural, exacerbated by human pollutants.

Natural cooling and heating has always been happening. In 2015, those that don't know by now that we are helping to tip the scale in a negative way making it more difficult for the natural balances to occur, never will know.

i am sorry for bringing this up because it has nothing to do with this subject.
but the truth is too hard to bear sometime..

Quote from: MagnaProp on December 16, 2015, 07:04:01 PM
The direction is not good. The cause is natural, exacerbated by human pollutants.

Natural cooling and heating has always been happening. In 2015, those that don't know by now that we are helping to tip the scale in a negative way making it more difficult for the natural balances to occur, never will know.

Climate change, I think we all get this, but mass die offs with dozens of species in a given area is a little hard to deal with.  It is 16th of December, I live in Canada and I am walking around in a tshirt when I am normally wearing multiple layers, hats and gloves at this time of year, I am still driving on my summer slicks and we are planning a BBQ for Christmas.

We are way off topic now and as long as Oil is < $40 a barrel any implementations of known  green technology such as Wind / Solar / Wave / Tidal / Osmotic etc will  not have an ROI let alone people investing in Next Generation Graphene Super Batteries.

More interesting Claims

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jd6Q8Lssso

The major capacitor manufacturers are not asleep, so who knows what will happen in the long run.  Dishing out hyperbole does not get you any Brownie points in my book.  The other thing that "freaks me out" is that the senior technical officer mixes up the terms energy and power in a five minute video clip about half a dozen times.

Look at this YouTube comment from the clip:  "Guess who just brought 500 dollars of your company stock? THIS GUY, don't let me down Robert I believe in you! this will change the world!"

I am curious why we don't want to weigh the entire supercapicitor we just weigh the grafoil before and after you wipe off "the active material" and assume the delta is the weight of the material responsible for storing energy. Also curious why we don't weigh the grafoil before the activated carbon is applied only after we wipe off the activated carbon.   

I am guessing the assumption is that grafoil does not play any part in the energy storage process it is merely a conductor that was used instead of some other type of conductive foil because he likes using heavy thick expensive carbon based materials that don't play a part in the energy storage process versus cheap aluminum foil.

The only thing that is responsible for energy storage in this supercapitor is apparently the activated carbon and not the actual carbon based foil.  If you watch the previous video a demonstration of a dip coated activated carbon on grafoil is shown to be a better supercap than a thermally reduced graphene oxide drop coated grafoil.  This I guess was done to demonstrate that the grafoil has no part in the process.

Is this actually the case ?

RMS is on Zerofossilfuel  at 3pm eastern time today with an open Q&A.   should be interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/user/ZeroFossilFuel

I am going to close the loop on Robert Murray-Smith.  Much to my surprise he made a clip about me on his YouTube channel alleging that I am a troll:

"On User2718218 A Troll And What To Do About Him"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrvRAjq3h1g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrvRAjq3h1g)

Here is my response that was posted on his clip that nobody could see:

<<<
So I watched the clip Robert and it's a fake sales pitch alleging that I
am a troll.  I will explain why, but you know the reason why already. 
Every contact that I made with you was about the technical merits, or
lack of merits, in the few clips of yours that I engaged with you on. 
You made some clips stating that you made these huge home-brew
supercapacitors with allegedly insanely high energy densities but you
offered up NO CREDIBLE MEASUREMENTS.  You risked damaging one of your
supercapacitors by shorting it to a voltage source that was much higher
than the breakdown of your capacitor like a rank amateur and I told you
that for your own good.  And then finally we have the two infamous
clips, where in one of them YOU MEASURE THE CURRENT BUT YOU DO NOT
MEASURE THE VOLTAGE WHICH IS INSANE.  In the other one you make a
ridiculously inaccurate measurement of the active ingredient in the
Lithium battery by being at the absolute bottom of the range of the
digital scale.

And what have you had to say about my technical
comments?  NOTHING, you ignored them because you have NO TECHNICAL
REBUTTAL.  All that you could do was insult me like a chav.  In that
sense, YOU are the troll, and you still INTENTIONALLY IGNORE the
technical stuff because I am bloody well right about the technical stuff
and you know it.  Your clip about me is a fake sales pitch because I
exposed your technical junk that anybody with a decent understanding of
tech would recognize as JUNK.
>>>

His clip alleging that I am a troll is junk.  Every time I engaged with him it was about him demonstrating bad electronics practices, or making grossly inaccurate measurements and arriving at false conclusions.  The worst engagement with him was when Robert made a ridiculous measurement mistake that an educated 12-year-old doing a science fair project would not make.  How can a fully grown man with a PhD make a mistake measuring the energy in a capacitor that an enthusiastic 12-year-old would not make?

MileHigh

Just one more noteworthy thing.  Robert has a PhD.  He wrote his PHD Thesis Titled: Dynamic simulations of carbons and carbon composite materials at Southhampton University in 1989.  I am assuming that we are supposed to assume that he has a scientific background and education?

Look at this tidbit from the YouTube comments on his clip about me:

There is some speculation about my YouTube handle in the comments, "User2718218," and Robert has no idea where it may have come from, then this:

<<<
Joel Bondurant:  eulers number e, the base of the natural logarithm is 2.718281828459045...
Robert Murray-Smith:  well there we go - that's where he got it
>>>

So are we supposed to assume that RMS is a "big science guy with a PhD" and yet he doesn't even recognize a number that is very close to Euler's number, which is the base of the natural logarithm!!!  The number "e" is used in science and engineering all the time and you simply can not live without that number.  HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ROBERT MURRAY-SMITH DID NOT KNOW THIS? ???  Does anybody smell something fishy?

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on July 05, 2016, 07:41:38 PM
Just one more noteworthy thing.  Robert has a PhD.  He wrote his PHD Thesis Titled: Dynamic simulations of carbons and carbon composite materials at Southhampton University in 1989.  I am assuming that we are supposed to assume that he has a scientific background and education?

Look at this tidbit from the YouTube comments on his clip about me:

There is some speculation about my YouTube handle in the comments, "User2718218," and Robert has no idea where it may have come from, then this:

<<<
Joel Bondurant:  eulers number e, the base of the natural logarithm is 2.718281828459045...
Robert Murray-Smith:  well there we go - that's where he got it
>>>

So are we supposed to assume that RMS is a "big science guy with a PhD" and yet he doesn't even recognize a number that is very close to Euler's number, which is the base of the natural logarithm!!!  The number "e" is used in science and engineering all the time and you simply can not live without that number.  HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ROBERT MURRAY-SMITH DID NOT KNOW THIS? ???  Does anybody smell something fishy?

MileHigh

I would have to say RMS is correct--you are a troll MH.
You troll peoples work and videos,until you find something you think is incorrect. You then go out of your way to make a big song and dance about it--even though it has nothing what so ever to do with you.

RMS is far more successful  than you have ever been,and his latest venture (the Edison electric car)just proves he knows his stuff.

So that is you MH, you are actually a troll. We have seen you act in such a manor in countless threads on this forum-time and time again,and not once have you lifted a finger to show any type of experimenting  your self.

So that is what you do--you browse  through other peoples work, looking for your chance to pounce.
This is trolling MH--you are a troll.


Brad

Brad:

You are FOS, 100%.  You are still in a state of shock because you have been given the real deal by me and it has therefore slanted what you say about me.  On the Joule Thief thread you almost went nuts because of it.

You can't deal with what I say above, and the ironic twist is when I first mentioned to you that RMS did something unbelievable you agreed with me - he discharged a capacitor and measured the current but did not measure the voltage to measure the so-called "energy" in the capacitor.   You agreed with me that that was ridiculous and went and posted on his YouTube clip to that effect.

I am no troll, and there is no such thing as the "Edison Electric car," by Edison Power and Sunvault Energy, it's preposterous nonsense.  You clearly don't know how to qualify a company, and I do.

http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-company-to-build-electric-supercar/ (http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-company-to-build-electric-supercar/)

QuoteThe car is expected to be ready by the first quarter of 2016 and is expected to do zero to sixty in 2.0 to 2.2 seconds and be rechargeable in 5 minutes

My ass, it's total horseshit, just like what you are saying about me is total horseshit.

So you need to get over the chip on your shoulder and if this is your hobby, then work at it.  You have learned more about electronics in the past three months than you learned in the past six years and you damn well know it.  And I am one of the primary reasons for that happening.

MileHigh

I second Brad ;)

The hat fits MH, like it or not... can we all be wrong?   I'm sure you think so and will argue the point.

Just carry on with another of your youtube accounts.

I can only think of 2 reasons to troll, personal entertainment or profit. Only you know which

Luc

Quote from: MileHigh on July 05, 2016, 07:39:19 PM
I am going to close the loop on Robert Murray-Smith.  Much to my surprise he made a clip about me on his YouTube channel alleging that I am a troll:

"On User2718218 A Troll And What To Do About Him"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrvRAjq3h1g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrvRAjq3h1g)

Here is my response that was posted on his clip that nobody could see:

<<<
So I watched the clip Robert and it's a fake sales pitch alleging that I
am a troll.  I will explain why, but you know the reason why already. 
Every contact that I made with you was about the technical merits, or
lack of merits, in the few clips of yours that I engaged with you on. 
You made some clips stating that you made these huge home-brew
supercapacitors with allegedly insanely high energy densities but you
offered up NO CREDIBLE MEASUREMENTS.  You risked damaging one of your
supercapacitors by shorting it to a voltage source that was much higher
than the breakdown of your capacitor like a rank amateur and I told you
that for your own good.  And then finally we have the two infamous
clips, where in one of them YOU MEASURE THE CURRENT BUT YOU DO NOT
MEASURE THE VOLTAGE WHICH IS INSANE.  In the other one you make a
ridiculously inaccurate measurement of the active ingredient in the
Lithium battery by being at the absolute bottom of the range of the
digital scale.

And what have you had to say about my technical
comments?  NOTHING, you ignored them because you have NO TECHNICAL
REBUTTAL.  All that you could do was insult me like a chav.  In that
sense, YOU are the troll, and you still INTENTIONALLY IGNORE the
technical stuff because I am bloody well right about the technical stuff
and you know it.  Your clip about me is a fake sales pitch because I
exposed your technical junk that anybody with a decent understanding of
tech would recognize as JUNK.
>>>

His clip alleging that I am a troll is junk.  Every time I engaged with him it was about him demonstrating bad electronics practices, or making grossly inaccurate measurements and arriving at false conclusions.  The worst engagement with him was when Robert made a ridiculous measurement mistake that an educated 12-year-old doing a science fair project would not make.  How can a fully grown man with a PhD make a mistake measuring the energy in a capacitor that an enthusiastic 12-year-old would not make?

MileHigh

You're such a troll :) 
How is his system of power measurement not exactly what digital systems do? 


You dislike that he's measuring with 0 resistance instead of infinite resistance?  (with an amp meter vs a volt meter)
the resistance is known; it's therefore known what the voltage is at any point you know the current.


can't imagine what you actually started with to be called out :) 


Some other comments from user? (http://youtu.be/3SdnN8su3Yc?a)

They do allow you to type single long comments now on youtube...?

Edit - cuz I can...

Oh just because you're sharing information doesn't mean what they are learning that involves the same information is actually coming from you?  It could be synchronicity?  And certainly you can't make a horse drink.

maybe a better view of user27....  (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=User2718218+site:youtube.com&start=10) 

You've got the gift of gab don't you?  Somehow you find the longest way to put the fewest words together?  Maybe they become numb like glancing over paragraphs in a book that drones on? *shrug*  Just taking shots in the dark, nothing personal, I don't even know you.

Luc:

I am not near mindless mush like you when it comes to evaluating what someone is presenting.

Robert Murray-Smith goes to measure the "energy" in a capacitor and he measures the current only and ignores the voltage.  That would be a FAIL in a grade six science fair project.

Let's just imagine two hypothetical conversations, you and Robert and me and Robert.

---

Luc:  Wow Robert, that's really interesting and you are taking an interesting and different approach.  Thanks for sharing.
RMS:  Thanks mate.

----

Me:  Robert, it doesn't make sense that you measured the current only and didn't measure the voltage.
RMS:  You are an idiot.

----

I have the moral high ground Luc and I am no troll.  Kiss my ass with both of your ridiculous allegations about me.  I have a spine and I told RMS to his face that he was making mistakes, and he made several.  He couldn't take it because he was used to his bunch of non-technical YouTube sycophants gobbling up whatever he was saying even if it didn't make sense.  RMS deleted all of his comments to me because more that half of them were just stupid insults and he never once engaged with me on the legitimate technical points I was making with him.  He didn't engage because he CAN'T - he was wrong.

So you can go sulk in a corner because with respect to RMS I have the moral high ground.  I was doing something that was morally right by approaching him and questioning him.  You trying to go after me is just a failure of your own morality.

MileHigh

Quote from: d3x0r on July 06, 2016, 12:59:18 AM

You're such a troll :) 
How is his system of power measurement not exactly what digital systems do? 

You dislike that he's measuring with 0 resistance instead of infinite resistance?  (with an amp meter vs a volt meter)
the resistance is known; it's therefore known what the voltage is at any point you know the current.

can't imagine what you actually started with to be called out :) 


Some other comments from user? (http://youtu.be/3SdnN8su3Yc?a)

They do allow you to type single long comments now on youtube...?

Edit - cuz I can...

Oh just because you're sharing information doesn't mean what they are learning that involves the same information is actually coming from you?  It could be synchronicity?  And certainly you can't make a horse drink.

No I am not a troll.   Your comments about the measurement issue make no sense at all.

RMS did a long slow discharge of one of his devices to supposedly measure the energy in the device.  He measured the current flow and the time increments but he ignored the decreasing voltage during the discharge.  Like I said, a smart 12-year-old that was doing a science fair project about measuring the energy in a capacitor would not make that mistake.

Now, do you have the moral courage and the personal integrity to say his measurement was wrong, or not?

Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2016, 01:08:24 AM
No I am not a troll.   Your comments about the measurement issue make no sense at all.

RMS did a long slow discharge of one of his devices to supposedly measure the energy in the device.  He measured the current flow and the time increments but he ignored the decreasing voltage during the discharge.  Like I said, a smart 12-year-old that was doing a science fair project about measuring the energy in a capacitor would not make that mistake.

Now, do you have the moral courage and the personal integrity to say his measurement was wrong, or not?

Ended after several edits with...

You've got the gift of gab don't you?  Somehow you find the longest way to put the fewest words together?  Maybe they become numb like glancing over paragraphs in a book that drones on? *shrug*  Just taking shots in the dark, nothing personal, I don't even know you.[/size]


*Shrug*


-------------
Edit : Uhmm... he takes the high current and high voltage and low current and low voltage and makes a trapazoid and yes it's a better guess because there is a dip in the middle... but with just a few subdivisions it's pretty close to the integral even minus a chunk, which is missing less in that sum than what he's chopping off the end of it would fill....

And true... low voltage at the end may be less useful in certain applications so they can only take the top 10%


I don't really know the full rating of power on laptop batteries... do they exclude a minimum margin?


My Chevy Volt only uses the top 60% of the charge as 100% of what it can use to drive distance... so if they say the Amp-Hours for that is that the 60% used/useful?  Or the 100% of the battery?


Even giving a margin of limiting to useful range.... it's pretty good. 


and if in a process it can be stacked thinner yet, it might have potential... and yes; maybe RMS does present an overly energetic excitement?  Maybe he IS that excited? Maybe just easily excited?  It's certainly more enterintaining to learn his progress from that than a dull somber monotone voice.


------------
edit: I hear echos ' but it's not supposed to be entertaining, if it's valid scientific presentation submitted for peer review' which it can't be; and should be?

Quote from: d3x0r on July 06, 2016, 01:09:09 AM

Ended after several edits with...

You've got the gift of gab don't you?  Somehow you find the longest way to put the fewest words together?  Maybe they become numb like glancing over paragraphs in a book that drones on? *shrug*  Just taking shots in the dark, nothing personal, I don't even know you.[/size]


*Shrug*


-------------
Edit : Uhmm... he takes the high current and high voltage and low current and low voltage and makes a trapazoid and yes it's a better guess because there is a dip in the middle... but with just a few subdivisions it's pretty close to the integral even minus a chunk, which is missing less in that sum than what he's chopping off the end of it would fill....

No he doesn't make a trapezoid in the clip I am talking about.

Here is the clip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM)

"A Perspective On The B Type EESD"

My comments:

Robert Murray-Smith In your clip <A Perspective On The C type EESD> you encourage your viewers to make a proper energy measurement by multiplying the current times the voltage times the time slice. In your clip <A Perspective On The B type EESD> You make the totally unbelievable error of measuring the current but not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.

You actually have not made a case for a higher energy to weight ratio for your compounds as compared to the compounds in a lithium-ion battery.  Your measurement error for the weighing of your materials is roughly +/-25%.  You have exaggerated the amount of measured energy in your cell by perhaps 5X to 8X.   Combine the exaggeration in the energy content with the error tolerance in your weight measurement and you have nothing.   You make the almost unbelievable error of not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.  So your clip is no good and you should take it down and redo it properly this time.

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

So why don't you take the time to watch the clip and tell me if Robert Murray-Smith is making a mistake or not.  I would like to hear your opinion.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2016, 01:22:29 AM
No he doesn't make a trapezoid in the clip I am talking about.

Here is the clip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM)

"A Perspective On The B Type EESD"

My comments:

Robert Murray-Smith In your clip <A Perspective On The C type EESD> you encourage your viewers to make a proper energy measurement by multiplying the current times the voltage times the time slice. In your clip <A Perspective On The B type EESD> You make the totally unbelievable error of measuring the current but not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.

You actually have not made a case for a higher energy to weight ratio for your compounds as compared to the compounds in a lithium-ion battery.  Your measurement error for the weighing of your materials is roughly +/-25%.  You have exaggerated the amount of measured energy in your cell by perhaps 5X to 8X.   Combine the exaggeration in the energy content with the error tolerance in your weight measurement and you have nothing.   You make the almost unbelievable error of not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.  So your clip is no good and you should take it down and redo it properly this time.

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

So why don't you take the time to watch the clip and tell me if Robert Murray-Smith is making a mistake or not.  I would like to hear your opinion.

"by perhaps 5X to 8X. "  you have presented no basis of that[/size]

ya until back at the math... https://youtu.be/W-aOPQ9_MyM?t=20m11s (https://youtu.be/W-aOPQ9_MyM?t=20m11s)  ... "that allows us to make a straight line at the top" which makes it a trapazoid.

Quote from: d3x0r on July 06, 2016, 01:35:23 AM
"by perhaps 5X to 8X. "  you have presented no basis of that[/size]

ya until back at the math... https://youtu.be/W-aOPQ9_MyM?t=20m11s (https://youtu.be/W-aOPQ9_MyM?t=20m11s)  ... "that allows us to make a straight line at the top" which makes it a trapazoid.

Watch the clip properly.  That graph where he does the trapezoid approximation is for the current only, and he is ignoring the voltage.

The basis for my estimate that he is exaggerating the energy content by 5X to 8X is that he ignores the voltage completely and the voltage is continuously decreasing.  When the voltage is low the power output is low and he completely ignores this fact.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2016, 01:42:45 AM
Watch the clip properly.  That graph where he does the trapezoid approximation is for the current only, and he is ignoring the voltage.

The basis for my estimate that he is exaggerating the energy content by 5X to 8X is that he ignores the voltage completely and the voltage is continuously decreasing.  When the voltage is low the power output is low and he completely ignores this fact.

voltage decreases linearly with the amperage; exactly proportionate to R ... so I'm sure there's jsut ..


E = I R
P = I E
P = I I R
and I2-I1




------------
Ya okay well...


Way late now; but ya... mAh is a a rating only when you can say it's at X voltage.  Your 'b-type' EESD iddn't maintain a voltage curve very long, and fell of very linear with the current...   so you end up with a sqrt(I) on the output...  think you're about breaking even; sorry I'm not very clear....

E = IR
P = IE
P = IIR

but your R is a motor that's variable resistance depending on RPM (contact time of the brush determins time current can flow; windings have their own limitation, plus the work lost to charge and discharge the magnetic field; so definatly a variable resistance.

But you have E and I so... it's forget R

1.5 * 178  on the start (instantanous power of 267mw)
0.3 * 31 at the end (instantanous power of 9mw at the end)
138mw average...

138mw at 1.5V would be great and would give you 92mAh  ( I = P/E)
but 138mw at 0.5V is  276mAh

but in any case not sure how you would get 697mAh (at what voltage by the way? 0.3? )


(and some more musings)
(end power over end voltage to give end mah oh- right it's 31...)
9mw / 0.3V  = 30mAh

-------------
so ya pretty high estimate... but is it even if it was also 100mAh ; it's 1/45'th the sample weight?

Come on guys, grow up.

Allthough MH never will win a price for being the most diplomatic communicator, what he 99% of the time is putting down in the forums is sound.

I know it hurts when you are told in an unambiguous manner that your measurements or way of thinking is flawed, but MH almost always backs it up with
references and his knowledge he gained in his many years working in the industry.

Off course he can and will be wrong sometime, but sooner or later that will be straighten out by similar knowledgeable people who will point this out in a civiliged way.

Please take note of what he is saying and use it in your advantage instead of feeling attacked all the time.
 

Regards itsu

Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2016, 12:33:55 AM
Brad:

You are FOS, 100%.  You are still in a state of shock because you have been given the real deal by me and it has therefore slanted what you say about me.  On the Joule Thief thread you almost went nuts because of it.

You can't deal with what I say above, and the ironic twist is when I first mentioned to you that RMS did something unbelievable you agreed with me - he discharged a capacitor and measured the current but did not measure the voltage to measure the so-called "energy" in the capacitor.   You agreed with me that that was ridiculous and went and posted on his YouTube clip to that effect.

I am no troll, and there is no such thing as the "Edison Electric car," by Edison Power and Sunvault Energy, it's preposterous nonsense.  You clearly don't know how to qualify a company, and I do.

http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-company-to-build-electric-supercar/ (http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-company-to-build-electric-supercar/)

My ass, it's total horseshit, just like what you are saying about me is total horseshit.

So you need to get over the chip on your shoulder and if this is your hobby, then work at it.  You have learned more about electronics in the past three months than you learned in the past six years and you damn well know it.  And I am one of the primary reasons for that happening.

MileHigh

MH,it dose not matter if your wrong or right,the way you go about things-it's like your on the hunt for another victim.
Everything you !think! you know,must not be argued against--we seen such in the JT thread.

For instance,the schematics below.
You say !your! JT circuit(1) is the most efficient,and i say circuit 2 is more efficient
I give you a very sound reason as to why circuit 2 is more efficient,and all you say is--crap,circuit 1 is more efficient--even though you have,on several occasions in other thread's,say including a battery in a circuit is a loss,when current from another source flows through that battery,and then to the load. The latest of this example,was your explanation on the 3 battery system Dave is sharing. But even when you are wrong,you insist you are right--and your latest on the IDEAL coil thread,where apparently now voltage leads current in charging a capacitance :o
Then there was your fiasco about the JFET,after i mentioned that it would be a good way to make a ultra low voltage JT-and the list go's on. Every thing i say,your right there to try and disprove it,whether you are wrong or right. You just jump straight onto everything i say,without giving any thought as to whether you are wrong or right--it's just the automatic !wrong! button pushed by you,and then you try and deal with your mistakes later on down the track,by some how turning into some one elses mistake ::)

Others can say what they like about you,but most of us here are aware of the way your work.

I have given you the opportunity to back up your claim that you could out do me on a bench,and your knowledge is far greater than mine,and every time you back down,and we hear that famous call--I dont build ;D

If all your knowledge on the way coils react and work is correct and spot on,and your circuit knowledge is far greater than mine,then take me on--a simple JT is well within anyone's means--stop being lazy,and back up your claim.



Brad

d3xOr:

Okay, I take it from your comments that you now agree that Robert Murray-Smith made an unacceptable mistake because he completely ignored the voltage when he was supposedly making an energy measurement.  Honestly, it's beyond belief but it is the case.  I will repeat to you again, I am no troll and you should retract your statement.

itsu:

Thank you for your comments.  For sure I am not perfect but with this RMS business I started out by trying to give him some sound advice and he rejected everything I said to him.  So I looked at a few more of his clips and simply stated to him that he was wrong.

Brad:

Get over it.  It turns out that you have been more or less deceiving yourself for years and I brought some reality into the picture for you.  You are benefiting from that, and the more you spin, the more you ultimately hurt yourself.

And you are still deceiving yourself.  The nonsensical "Edison electric car" does not exist but you won't acknowledge that.  Now you are saying "apparently now voltage leads current in charging a capacitance" with respect to me which is not what I said at all.  I said to you that when you charge a capacitor with a pulse then the concept of current leading or lagging voltage does not apply.  The fact that you would mention the bloody JFET for the 30th time is both sad and comical.  Stop deceiving yourself and others like some hapless spin doctor trapped in a vortex.

I am no troll and you should retract your statement.  I yanked you out of your electronics stupor and I saw Robert Murry-Smith doing something wrong and I had the conviction to state it.

MileHigh

My 5 cents (inflation).
I also commented on RMS's video, similar to MH. RMS replied that he agreed but did not think it mattered. 
If you think that the message is less important than the way it is delivered, than you will lose out on a lot of good info.

   I too PM'd RMS and disappointingly he didn't seem to "get it" about the
  declining voltage.
   I really like the fellow and he's done some inspiring videos.
         John.

Quote from: minnie on July 06, 2016, 05:15:49 PM


   I too PM'd RMS and disappointingly he didn't seem to "get it" about the
  declining voltage.
   I really like the fellow and he's done some inspiring videos.
         John.

My opinion of RMS is a lot lower now.

I will just repeat what I already said for the sake of dramatizing the point:  If you try to measure the energy content in a capacitor and you fail to measure the voltage during the discharge cycle you become the laughing stock of your class and any astute 12-year-old science fair nerd would also point out the same mistake.

It's so outrageous that you have to wonder.  It's simply unacceptable and the non-technical RMS sycophants that comment on his YouTube clips seem to be blissfully unaware.

I think I know the genesis for him making the video.  Note he made the video about a month ago.  Well, about two months ago a Disquis poster named "redrooster" stepped in to defend Robert Murray-Smith on the article "EESD: Robert Murray-Smith" on the Revolution Green web site.

http://revolution-green.com/eesd-electronic-storage-device/ (http://revolution-green.com/eesd-electronic-storage-device/)

I strongly suspected that RMS made himself a sock puppet named "redrooster" and at least one other person agreed with me.  So I had a debate with "redrooster" two months ago and simply repeated the same points that I had made to RMS on his YouTube clips seven months ago.  I can hypothesize that that steamed him up and he got mad and made the clip about me a month ago.  It's only a guess.

Sample of "redrooster:"

QuoteIts a commercial product that he is making and just because you think he should divulge everything to you,you go and throw a tantrum.lol Ive been making these graphene EESDs from RMS videos and If you had the brains to make some yourself you would see that they are indeed a breakthrough in battery technology.Robert made a video pointing out your unreasonable demands for info on his commercial product. Why dont you hassle NASA with the same augument and see how far you get. He has deleted all the comments and banned you for being an unreasonable idiot.

My response:

QuoteWhat you are saying is nonsense and I would not be surprised if you are an RMS sock puppet.  I did not ask him to "divulge everything" that is a ridiculous thing for you to say.  I asked him to show credible measurements to back up his claims, which would divulge nothing at all. Don't give me your "if you had the brains" crap, that's the same MO that I have seen from RMS before and that's why I suspect that you are RMS.  You have not shown any kind of breakthrough whatsoever because you have not convincingly demonstrated any increased energy density by weight or by volume that I am aware of.  I did not make any unreasonable demands at all, I simply asked for measurements to back up your data. And of course we both know the clip where you made the "measurement" where you measured current but did not measure any voltage is an embarrassing farce that would get you laughed out of any kind of academic presentation of your results.  It's so bad that one suspects your motivations.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.  To appropriate an expression from black culture, I am giving him the side-eye.

Just for fun, this is the clip that started the "beef."

"Edison Power - Tap Charging The EESD"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMiny6uma58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMiny6uma58)

Not the clip is only 1:42 so it is very short.

In the clip RMS "tap charges" his capacitors by briefly connecting them to a 37-volt power supply.  For another device he "tap charges" it by connecting it to a 50-volt power supply.  I am no expert in supercapacitors but I do know that a typical maximum voltage for a supercapacitor is somewhere around three or four volts.  If the voltage is higher than that you damage the device.

So I politely posted on his YouTube clip that he might be at serious risk of damaging his devices by over-voltaging them.  I got a very rude reply.  I posted again saying that I thought that he would risk damaging his device by "punching a hole" though it because the output capacitor in his bench power supply would be at 37-volts and it would "fight" with the discharged supercapacitor at nearly zero volts.  I just got more rude and ugly comments from him and then he deleted the entire conversation.  He never discussed anything technical.  I was very surprised, and honestly bewildered.

There are two bizarre exchanges in the comments on the clip:  (possibly more)

1) zeropointfuel:  I've been working with pulse charging for many years I wonder how well your capacitors would work  in series up to 160 volts or so do you think it could handle this through current in series. most of the loss I deal with in a pulse motor configuration is due to the internal resistance of the battery. :) 
Robert Murray-Smith:  +zeropointfuel the little device you saw was tested to 120 volts mate
My comments:  "Tested to 120 volts" makes no sense at all.  What is going on?

2) Abdulla Qasem:  +Robert Murray-Smith Really impressive , how much current can the credit card (2000F eesd) provide ? . I hope all goes well with your project.
Robert Murray-Smith:  +Abdulla Qasem it has a voltage of 2.15 - so you can work out the coulombs and joules mate and from that get current flow
My comments:  What?  No, in fact you cannot work out the maximum current flow from the coulombs and joules.

And this guy is supposed to develop a virtual electric car?

Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2016, 05:58:11 PM
I will just repeat what I already said for the sake of dramatizing the point:  If you try to measure the energy content in a capacitor and you fail to measure the voltage during the discharge cycle you become the laughing stock of your class and any astute 12-year-old science fair nerd would also point out the same mistake.

It's so outrageous that you have to wonder.  It's simply unacceptable and the non-technical RMS sycophants that comment on his YouTube clips seem to be blissfully unaware.

I think I know the genesis for him making the video.  Note he made the video about a month ago.  Well, about two months ago a Disquis poster named "redrooster" stepped in to defend Robert Murray-Smith on the article "EESD: Robert Murray-Smith" on the Revolution Green web site.

http://revolution-green.com/eesd-electronic-storage-device/ (http://revolution-green.com/eesd-electronic-storage-device/)

I strongly suspected that RMS made himself a sock puppet named "redrooster" and at least one other person agreed with me.  So I had a debate with "redrooster" two months ago and simply repeated the same points that I had made to RMS on his YouTube clips seven months ago.  I can hypothesize that that steamed him up and he got mad and made the clip about me a month ago.  It's only a guess.

Sample of "redrooster:"

My response:

That's the way the cookie crumbles.  To appropriate an expression from black culture, I am giving him the side-eye.

Quote: What you are saying is nonsense and I would not be surprised if you are an RMS sock puppet.

And there you go,that is the attitude that gets you into hot water all the time MH.
There is no !Mr nice guy! with you,it's just all out war on those trying to better the world.

It is always the automatic !bullshit! button  with you,when some one presents something that dose not conform to !your! way of doing thing's,or go's against your beliefs.
Thats pretty ironic coming from some one who dose nothing but talk.

You think you have taught me better than what i find through experiment's,then prove it-->how are you going to do that?.
You cant--all you have is words.


Brad.

Quote from: tinman on July 06, 2016, 07:31:49 PM

Quote: What you are saying is nonsense and I would not be surprised if you are an RMS sock puppet.

And there you go,that is the attitude that gets you into hot water all the time MH.
There is no !Mr nice guy! with you,it's just all out war on those trying to better the world.

It is always the automatic !bullshit! button  with you,when some one presents something that dose not conform to !your! way of doing thing's,or go's against your beliefs.
Thats pretty ironic coming from some one who dose nothing but talk.

You think you have taught me better than what i find through experiment's,then prove it-->how are you going to do that?.
You cant--all you have is words.

Brad.

No you don't Brad.

At this point I am sick of this bullshit from you.  I approached RMS very politely and right away he started calling me an "idiot" and "stupid."  Those are the facts.  You get that chip off your shoulder.  If you kept on making mistakes all the time, then it was damn good medicine for you to tell you the truth.

And you are too scared to respond to what I have told you several times now; you learned more about electronics in the past three months that you have learned in the past six years - mostly due to me.   You have had more interesting discussions on here in the past three months than the past six years, because of me.

And with respect to RMS, I clearly have the moral high ground.  Do you get that?  If you had any guts you would say that too.

To be brutally honest, and RMS deserves some brutal honesty, it looks like he just might be another guy that wouldn't be able to answer an electronics question about a circuit that consists of a power supply and one single component.  His electric supercar is a bloody joke.  Only to be a fly on the wall when the half-dozen company directors were in a meeting discussing generating that press release.

And the pen is mightier than the bench - it is.  Suck on that and stop sounding like a miserable sourpus.

MileHigh

Miles
Quote
And the pen is mightier than the bench - it is
end quote

Miles
will you put pen to paper and commission a build to show this ?

a simple PDF sent to  a very trusted and qualified builder here to qualify this claim [experiments not needed here the pen is mightier than the bench]

A man of your ilk should be able to meet Brad's challenge in this manner ??
you with the Pen ... He with the Bench ?

But your PDF will be built and tested on another Bench .[post number 245 in this thread]

??

a friendly ..arrangement... conducted honestly and respectfully ?

the details can be worked out with Poynt ?

??

Quote from: tinman on July 06, 2016, 07:31:49 PM

Quote: What you are saying is nonsense and I would not be surprised if you are an RMS sock puppet.

And there you go,that is the attitude that gets you into hot water all the time MH.
There is no !Mr nice guy! with you,it's just all out war on those trying to better the world.

It is always the automatic !bullshit! button  with you,when some one presents something that dose not conform to !your! way of doing thing's,or go's against your beliefs.
Thats pretty ironic coming from some one who dose nothing but talk.

You think you have taught me better than what i find through experiment's,then prove it-->how are you going to do that?.
You cant--all you have is words.


Brad.

Hahahaha - I had to have a little giggle at this!


Shhh, MileHigh has WMD's too (http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/chilcot-report-andrew-wilkie-blames-bali-bombing-lindt-cafe-siege-on-australias-iraq-war-involvement/ar-BBu1pQR?li=AAabC8j&ocid=spartanntp)!!!


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

I think, that Robert Murray-Smith try to explain the possibility of the EESD.
Also based on the concept, a car building process is running.
Lets wait a while and than talk about the results.

I can't see a positive moment in cutting down the video into theoretical pieces.

The most of the great scientist had a bench, not only a pen.
Einstein is a exception. But he brought a new concept to our mind.

Only crunching numbers into a well known formula is not really science.
This behavior shows only the ability for "working" with numbers and formulas.

How ever, this number crunching persons can show a positive or negative behavior.
For example, positive is to teach the well known formulas to the community.

Negative is, to flood different forums as the Master TROLL.

The different between positive an negative is a psychological issue.
Perhaps consulting a shrink is a helpful action for all.

This is only my personal view, not a general valid statement.

Regards
Love + Peace
3K

Ps:
Sry for my bad English, try to become better

Oh, so Mr. "Peace and Love" is calling me a "Master TROLL?"

Is that correct?  So what does that mean?  Does that mean you are not supposed to be curious and ask questions?  Does that mean that you are never supposed to "upset" an "established personality" if you are curious about what they are doing?

Does that mean that you are supposed to be a mindless drone and accept information without thinking?

What is a troll?

Is that somebody that disagrees with me?
Is that somebody that has curiosity?
It that somebody that asks questions?
Is that somebody that dares to think?
Is that somebody that thinks for themselves?

How do you avoid being a troll?

Is that somebody that always agrees with everybody?
Is that somebody that is never curious because that might upset somebody?
It that somebody that never asks questions because that might upset somebody?
Is that somebody that does not dare to think because that might upset somebody?
Is that somebody that does not think for themselves?

To avoid being a troll never ask questions and do not think for yourself.

Is that what you think 3Kelvin?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/hoverboard-recall-battery-1.3666795 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/hoverboard-recall-battery-1.3666795)

About 501,000 hoverboards are being recalled in the United States due to a risk of fire.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said Wednesday there have been at least 99 incidents reported of the lithium-ion battery packs in the hoverboards overheating, sparking, smoking, catching fire and possibly exploding.

The commission said there have been at least 18 reports of injuries, such as burns to the neck, legs or arms. Property damage has also been reported.

The recall covers boards sold by 10 firms. Some of the brands included in the recall include products from Powerboard, Airwalk and iMoto.

Consumers are being told to immediately stop using the recalled products and contact the recalling company to return their board for a full refund, a free repair or a free replacement depending on the model.

The recalled hoverboards were manufactured in China and sold at stores across the U.S. and by online retailers between June 2015 and May 2016 for between $350 and $900 US.


So 3Kelvin, if you don't think and you don't ask questions and you work for some unscrupulous company with poor design and substandard manufacturing processes you could PUT CHILDREN IN DANGER OF SEVERE INJURY.

Just be a drone that does not think 3Kelvin, that is "safe."

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg487865#msg487865 date=1467809304]



Brad:

QuoteAnd you are still deceiving yourself.  The nonsensical "Edison electric car" does not exist but you won't acknowledge that.  Now you are saying "apparently now voltage leads current in charging a capacitance" with respect to me which is not what I said at all.  I said to you that when you charge a capacitor with a pulse then the concept of current leading or lagging voltage does not apply.  The fact that you would mention the bloody JFET for the 30th time is both sad and comical.  Stop deceiving yourself and others like some hapless spin doctor trapped in a vortex.

Quoteand I saw Robert Murry-Smith doing something wrong and I had the conviction to state it.

MileHigh
[/quote]

Lol

It is funny to watch you MH,and read the things you say.
I once said that you are a hypocrite,and once again you prove me correct.
I mean,take a look at the highlighted. Here you are complaining that i once again mention a mistake you made some time back--what,maybe two months ago?. And here you are,some 10 months later after the fact,still pointing out RMS mistake's ;D

So it is ok for you to keep going on and on about some one's mistake's,but dare not any of us keep referring to,or reminding you of yours ::)
That there is a true hypocrite MH ;)

QuoteI yanked you out of your electronics stupor
Get over it.  It turns out that you have been more or less deceiving yourself for years and I brought some reality into the picture for you.  You are benefiting from that, and the more you spin, the more you ultimately hurt yourself.

You give your self far to much credit MH,and in fact,the opposite is true.
Most of what i have learned so far is by way of self teaching's--on the bench.
You say the pen is mightier than the bench lol,when in fact,everything the pen rights down,originated through actual experiments--on the bench.
Trial,error,and observation is the mightiest MH,the pen is only to record what was found.

The one thing you have taught me, is who to listen to,and who not to listen to.

QuoteI am no troll and you should retract your statement.

If you had your way MH,everyone that disagreed with you would have to retract there statements,so i think i'll let mine stay a while :D,as we all know what sort of world chaos the last dictator caused ;)

Brad

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg487925#msg487925 date=1467880867]
Oh, so Mr. "Peace and Love" is calling me a "Master TROLL?"

QuoteIs that correct?  So what does that mean?  Does that mean you are not supposed to be curious and ask questions?  Does that mean that you are never supposed to "upset" an "established personality" if you are curious about what they are doing?



What is a troll?

Quote wiki"
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.


MH
This is you to a T
Im glad i looked that up--cheers


Brad

-OT-
Hello together,
Peace and Love to all members and guests of this forum.

At first i have to apologize for my bad English.
I am not interested in arguing with members and / or guests.
My request is only to describe a "negative psychological behavior" at the www.

Lets talk about Master Trolls.

A Master Troll have no content in his own (mirrored) www personality.
At this point i have to prove my statement.

YT Message about the channel is => This channel doesn't have any content
https://www.youtube.com/user/User2718218

So what is the meaning of "doesn't have any content"?
From my personnel view it means a void, emptiness, vacuum etc.

For that reason, it is clear why and how Master Trolls acting in the www.

I think, a good way to integrate the MT is to amplify the positive aspects.
For example the ability to transmit knowledge to the community.

In other words,
dear MT please don't be the pain in the neck.
Try to think and act positive like a master teacher.


Regards
Love+Peace
3K

Brad:

QuoteIt is funny to watch you MH,and read the things you say.
I once said that you are a hypocrite,and once again you prove me correct.
I mean,take a look at the highlighted. Here you are complaining that i once again mention a mistake you made some time back--what,maybe two months ago?. And here you are,some 10 months later after the fact,still pointing out RMS mistake's

Actually Brad, the JFET business is just an example of your irrational response to stress and your intellectual weakness.  And on top of that you are never in a million years going to develop your own circuit around a JFET to get a Joule Thief that works at very low voltages.

On the other hand, making a technically and intellectually dishonest clip where you completely fail to measure the energy in a capacitor, fail to make a conversion to equivalent Lithium-Ion ampere-hours, and grossly exaggerate the amount of energy in your device is a serious issue.  Especially when you represent a company that is pitching higher energy density capacitors.

If you can't make a distinction between the two then you have serious problems.

QuoteYou give your self far to much credit MH,and in fact,the opposite is true.
Most of what i have learned so far is by way of self teaching's--on the bench.

No, what i am saying is absolutely true.  I woke you up out of your electronics stupor.  For the last six years you have been building pulse motors and watching them spin and you weren't really progressing at all.  It was more or less stagnation, doing the same or similar things over and over and barely leaning anything new.

The pen is indeed mightier than the bench.

MileHigh

Brad:

QuoteQuote wiki"
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

MH
This is you to a T
Im glad i looked that up--cheers

I start discussions to talk about technical issues.  I don't upset people by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.  I post messages that are on-topic and sometimes those messages may challenge someone's beliefs or they may challenge how they interpret their setup.

It's an intellectual and technical coward that says, "Boo! Hoo!  You are saying something about my pulse motor that I don't understand or I disagree with so you are a troll!!"

I don't deliberately try to provoke readers into an emotional response.  I simply make my points and if you get all emotional because you don't understand what resonance actually is and you are incapable of explaining what it is and how it works and that gets you all upset, that is your problem, not mine.  There is no deliberate intent to provoke readers into an emotional response, none.

Then there is always the act of descending into the abyss of moral bankruptcy and saying, "Boo! Hoo!  Anybody that disagrees with me is a troll!"

So you better put your brain in gear Brad and read the definition again and actually understand it this time.

MileHigh

Quote from: 3Kelvin on July 07, 2016, 06:27:32 AM
-OT-
Hello together,
Peace and Love to all members and guests of this forum.

At first i have to apologize for my bad English.
I am not interested in arguing with members and / or guests.
My request is only to describe a "negative psychological behavior" at the www.

In other words,
dear MT please don't be the pain in the neck.
Try to think and act positive like a master teacher.

Regards
Love+Peace
3K

Mr. 3K:

You need to "love and peace" your brain into gear and start using your critical thinking skills.  Don't be a pain in the ass.

Love and peace for positive thought and intellectual honesty.

Work on improving your intellectual honesty.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 07, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
Brad:











MileHigh

QuoteActually Brad, the JFET business is just an example of your irrational response to stress and your intellectual weakness.

Come now MH--do unto other's as you would have them do unto you.
If you dont like others dragging up your mistakes all the time,then dont drag up others mistakes all the time. :D

QuoteAnd on top of that you are never in a million years going to develop your own circuit around a JFET to get a Joule Thief that works at very low voltages.

Lol-really ?

QuoteOn the other hand, making a technically and intellectually dishonest clip where you completely fail to measure the energy in a capacitor, fail to make a conversion to equivalent Lithium-Ion ampere-hours, and grossly exaggerate the amount of energy in your device is a serious issue.  Especially when you represent a company that is pitching higher energy density capacitors.

Holly snapping duck sh-t batman,call the hit squad.

QuoteIf you can't make a distinction between the two then you have serious problems.

There is no difference MH
You made a mistake,and you hate others bringing it up time and time again.
RMS made a mistake,and your happy wollowing on about it almost a year later,much the same as you do in regards to EMJ and Wattsup not being able to answer your ideal coil question.

QuoteNo, what i am saying is absolutely true.  I woke you up out of your electronics stupor.  For the last six years you have been building pulse motors and watching them spin and you weren't really progressing at all.  It was more or less stagnation, doing the same or similar things over and over and barely leaning anything new.

How many pulse motors have you built again MH?--or a JT even?
Could you throw up a pic of that electromagnet you built some time back now--i cant seem to find the picture--just so as we can see some of your !hands on! bench skills ;)

QuoteThe pen is indeed mightier than the bench.

Well i hope you put that pen to good use soon ;)

I remember NASA spending a shit load of money developing a pen that would work in space,while the Russian's just decided to use a pencil ;D


Brad

Brad:

QuoteCome now MH--do unto other's as you would have them do unto you.
If you dont like others dragging up your mistakes all the time,then dont drag up others mistakes all the time.

Oh come now Brad, there are probably about 500 errors that you have made that are akin to my "JFET error" so should we start that thread and start filling it up?

QuoteLol-really ?

Yes really.  I think the chances of you designing a Joule Thief circuit that uses a JFET are very close to zero.

QuoteHolly snapping duck sh-t batman,call the hit squad.

That's it, just be a mindless RMS drone and cheer him on when he does something that is so outrageous that a 12-year-old would recognize it as being completely wrong.  Be a good mindless drone and be inferior to a budding 12-year-old that is interested in electronics.  While you are at it why don't you send $6660 AUD to Hope Girl and buy yourself a QEG.

QuoteThere is no difference MH

There is a difference, put your brain in gear.

QuoteCould you throw up a pic of that electromagnet you built some time back now

Second time you mention that and I think it's a scrambled brains ricochet in your head.  I never showed a pic of an electromagnet.

You are selling yourself out and you are coward when you can't say that RMS did something seriously wrong.

But hey, perhaps we should not be surprised.   We have this clip from you:

"Triphene Super Cap 2600 Farads in half of a credit card."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvBckUkjEfM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvBckUkjEfM)

Your claim is total bullshit Brad.  You caught the RMS disease.  You make a bullshit claim that you have made a 2600 Farad supercapacitor and it's not even remotely close to 2600 Farads.  You just "say it" and do no serious measurements on the device.  You are in the same morally bankrupt boat as RMS.  It was just a case of monkey-see-monkey-do.

MileHigh

Here, Brad, here is what I said to you on your YouTube channel 10 months ago:

<<<
Brad, supercapacitors are a fascinating subject and I looked at a few of Robert Murray-Smith's clips and I only looked at this only one clip of yours about supercaps.  I am going to discuss measurement issues, and I know that I am flying mostly blind here so I am asking you to be understanding because of that.

You are building caps so measurements are king here.  You put "2600 Farads" in your clip title, but in this clip you say you still haven't measured the actual capacity.  You need to be conservative by only claiming a capacitance value for what you have actually measured.

Just doing some preliminary paper napkin calculations that are not 100% legit and over simplified the numbers don't seem to add up.

1.7 volts at 2600 farads is 3757 Joules of energy stored in the cap. You talk about three minutes charging time in your clip.  3757 Joules over 180 seconds gives you an average of 20.9 watts to charge a 2600 farad cap to 1.7 volts in three minutes.  (I am really cheating here almost pretending the cap is like a resistor)

However, you say the cap is limited to 100 mA charging current.  If you have a voltage source of 1.7 volts supplying 100 mA that's 0.17 watts average charging power.  (Again, for a cap this does not truly make sense, it's just for illustrative purposes.)

I will put it this way:  If you have a discharged cap, and you set your power supply to 1.7 volts, and you measure 100 mA when the charging process starts, and it takes approximately 3 minutes to see the charging current drop to nearly zero telling you that the supercap is fully charged, then there is no way that your supercap is even close to 2600 farads.

Does this all make sense to you?  If the cap was truly 2600 farads you would have to be putting an average of 20 watts into the cap for three minutes to charge it, and your charging power starts at 0.17 watts and ends at nearly zero watts three minutes later.  So if I am more or less on track, then you can see there is a major problem.

And that suggests a challenge for you:  Develop a way to make a serious measurement of the capacitance of the supercapacitors you are making. You have to go beyond anecdotal "measurements" where you quote how long the supercap can run a motor.

I think it's great what you are doing, but you need to develop a serious measurement protocol that actually measures the capacitance properly.
>>>

You did not respond to my posting.  Your capacitor claim is just fantasy BSing.  You can do better than that.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 07, 2016, 08:04:54 PM
Brad:

Oh come now Brad, there are probably about 500 errors that you have made that are akin to my "JFET error" so should we start that thread and start filling it up?

Yes really.  I think the chances of you designing a Joule Thief circuit that uses a JFET are very close to zero.

That's it, just be a mindless RMS drone and cheer him on when he does something that is so outrageous that a 12-year-old would recognize it as being completely wrong.  Be a good mindless drone and be inferior to a budding 12-year-old that is interested in electronics.  While you are at it why don't you send $6660 AUD to Hope Girl and buy yourself a QEG.

There is a difference, put your brain in gear.

Second time you mention that and I think it's a scrambled brains ricochet in your head.  I never showed a pic of an electromagnet.

You are selling yourself out and you are coward when you can't say that RMS did something seriously wrong.

But hey, perhaps we should not be surprised.   We have this clip from you:

"Triphene Super Cap 2600 Farads in half of a credit card."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvBckUkjEfM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvBckUkjEfM)

Your claim is total bullshit Brad.  You caught the RMS disease.  You make a bullshit claim that you have made a 2600 Farad supercapacitor and it's not even remotely close to 2600 Farads.  You just "say it" and do no serious measurements on the device.  You are in the same morally bankrupt boat as RMS.  It was just a case of monkey-see-monkey-do.

MileHigh

Dear MH.

Might i suggest that you go and read my comments on RMS video's.
Once you have done that,then you may come back and apologise  for calling me a coward,because you think that i didnt have the guts to tell RMS that his measurements were in error.

Brad.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 07, 2016, 08:25:29 PM
Here, Brad, here is what I said to you on your YouTube channel 10 months ago:

<<<
Brad, supercapacitors are a fascinating subject and I looked at a few of Robert Murray-Smith's clips and I only looked at this only one clip of yours about supercaps.  I am going to discuss measurement issues, and I know that I am flying mostly blind here so I am asking you to be understanding because of that.

You are building caps so measurements are king here.  You put "2600 Farads" in your clip title, but in this clip you say you still haven't measured the actual capacity.  You need to be conservative by only claiming a capacitance value for what you have actually measured.

Just doing some preliminary paper napkin calculations that are not 100% legit and over simplified the numbers don't seem to add up.

1.7 volts at 2600 farads is 3757 Joules of energy stored in the cap. You talk about three minutes charging time in your clip.  3757 Joules over 180 seconds gives you an average of 20.9 watts to charge a 2600 farad cap to 1.7 volts in three minutes.  (I am really cheating here almost pretending the cap is like a resistor)

However, you say the cap is limited to 100 mA charging current.  If you have a voltage source of 1.7 volts supplying 100 mA that's 0.17 watts average charging power.  (Again, for a cap this does not truly make sense, it's just for illustrative purposes.)

I will put it this way:  If you have a discharged cap, and you set your power supply to 1.7 volts, and you measure 100 mA when the charging process starts, and it takes approximately 3 minutes to see the charging current drop to nearly zero telling you that the supercap is fully charged, then there is no way that your supercap is even close to 2600 farads.

Does this all make sense to you?  If the cap was truly 2600 farads you would have to be putting an average of 20 watts into the cap for three minutes to charge it, and your charging power starts at 0.17 watts and ends at nearly zero watts three minutes later.  So if I am more or less on track, then you can see there is a major problem.

And that suggests a challenge for you:  Develop a way to make a serious measurement of the capacitance of the supercapacitors you are making. You have to go beyond anecdotal "measurements" where you quote how long the supercap can run a motor.

I think it's great what you are doing, but you need to develop a serious measurement protocol that actually measures the capacitance properly.
>>>

You did not respond to my posting.  Your capacitor claim is just fantasy BSing.  You can do better than that.

Ah,so you have made the assumption  that i fully charged the cap.
Another outstanding job there MH-you should become a clairvoyant.
I mean hell-even i didnt know i had fully charged the cap for the video demo--your good MH


Brad

Quote from: tinman on July 08, 2016, 12:50:14 AM
Dear MH.

Might i suggest that you go and read my comments on RMS video's.
Once you have done that,then you may come back and apologise  for calling me a coward,because you think that i didnt have the guts to tell RMS that his measurements were in error.

Brad.

I am fully aware of your YouTube comments.  But right now right here on this thread over the past few days you have said nothing and even made light of the RMS measurement issue and tried to impugn my character instead.  RMS calling me a troll is horseshit and you have had nothing to say about that.  It's right here on this thread that you are a coward.

Quote from: tinman on July 08, 2016, 12:57:06 AM
Ah,so you have made the assumption  that i fully charged the cap.
Another outstanding job there MH-you should become a clairvoyant.
I mean hell-even i didnt know i had fully charged the cap for the video demo--your good MH

Brad

Not this time Brad.  What are you trying to say?  Put your brain in gear and compose proper sentences that taken together make a cohesive and coherent logical argument to say whatever it is that you are trying to say.   Say something that will be easy and sensible to read that makes sense.  Are you making some unstated references to some of the things that I am saying?  If yes, state what they are and put them in your response. 

Put together a logical argument to make your points in an understandable and easy to read form.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2016, 01:09:06 AM
I am fully aware of your YouTube comments.  But right now right here on this thread over the past few days you have said nothing and even made light of the RMS measurement issue and tried to impugn my character instead.  RMS calling me a troll is horseshit and you have had nothing to say about that.  It's right here on this thread that you are a coward.

Yes i did,i agree with RMS--you are a troll-and a hypocritical one at that.

I have said nothing about RMS's measurements being correct on this thread--find it if you can.
What i have said,is that after 10+ month's,you are still whaling on about it--but dare we not bring up the J/FET fiasco ::).

It seems you have a set of rules for your self,and a different set for everyone else MH.


Brad

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2016, 01:17:43 AM
Not this time Brad.  What are you trying to say?  Put your brain in gear and compose proper sentences that taken together make a cohesive and coherent logical argument to say whatever it is that you are trying to say.   Say something that will be easy and sensible to read that makes sense.  Are you making some unstated references to some of the things that I am saying?  If yes, state what they are and put them in your response. 

Put together a logical argument to make your points in an understandable and easy to read form.

It made perfect sense MH,and it would seem once again,only you dont get it.
Im guessing sarcasm is a weak point with you,as that's what it was MH.

Like i said,you assumed that i fully charged the cap in the video,but that was obviously a mistake on your behalf.


Brad

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg487988#msg487988 date=1467936294]

QuoteOh come now Brad, there are probably about 500 errors that you have made that are akin to my "JFET error" so should we start that thread and start filling it up?

Hey MH--knock yourself out,if that is what you want to do with your time.

QuoteYes really.  I think the chances of you designing a Joule Thief circuit that uses a JFET are very close to zero.

Well,i do not think it would be that hard to make a JT circuit using a J/FET MH.
In fact,i recon i could even build a mechanical JT that worked below 100mV.
Using electronic components is easy MH,but mechanical--now that is art.
In fact,i might try my luck at building one tonight--just for you MH ;D

QuoteYou are selling yourself out and you are coward when you can't say that RMS did something seriously wrong.

Well even you know you lied here MH,as you even admitted that i did indeed point out to RMS that his measurement method was in error.
So you are calling me a coward for something you say i did not do,when you know that i actually did do just what you say i did not do lol.

QuoteSecond time you mention that and I think it's a scrambled brains ricochet in your head.  I never showed a pic of an electromagnet.

No,it was more like a birds nest wrapped around a steel nail--or something like that.


Brad

Brad:

QuoteYes i did,i agree with RMS--you are a troll-and a hypocritical one at that.

You can kiss my ass with your BS.  RMS lied when he called me a troll because he had no technical response to my technical questions, it's as simple as that.  It was pure sleaze on his part.  I responded to your "troll definition" posting which you ignored.  You have serious trouble putting your brain in gear sometimes.

QuoteWhat i have said,is that after 10+ month's,you are still whaling on about it--but dare we not bring up the J/FET fiasco

"JFET fiasco" is a joke and just shows how weak your arguments are.  Poor Brad can't think of anything to say.  You want to see a total fiasco, just go read yourself in the "MH question" thread.

QuoteIt made perfect sense MH,and it would seem once again,only you dont get it.
Im guessing sarcasm is a weak point with you,as that's what it was MH.

No it doesn't make "perfect sense" at all.  That's a pure cop out on your part, seemingly you lack the language skills and the intellectual capacity to put forth a logical argument and all that you can do is use a useless platitude.  More importantly, your claim of 2600 Farads is complete and total bullshit and in this case you are just as morally and technically bankrupt as RMS.

QuoteWell even you know you lied here MH,as you even admitted that i did indeed point out to RMS that his measurement method was in error.
So you are calling me a coward for something you say i did not do,when you know that i actually did do just what you say i did not do lol.

I will just repeat to you that on this thread you sold yourself out and you are a coward.

QuoteNo,it was more like a birds nest wrapped around a steel nail--or something like that.

More like spaghetti brains.

MileHigh

This thread is the best example to learn about the psychological  profile of a Master Troll.

I think, the MT have at first to wash his mouth with soap, second step is to avoid to be a hyper nervous cry-baby.

Third step, to be a loved member of the community he have to had a change in using bad words first.

Love and Peace
3K  :o

Quote from: 3Kelvin on July 08, 2016, 09:27:17 AM
This thread is the best example to learn about the psychological  profile of a Master Troll.

I think, the MT have at first to wash his mouth with soap, second step is to avoid to be a hyper nervous cry-baby.

Third step, to be a loved member of the community he have to had a change in using bad words first.

Love and Peace
3K  :o

"Love and Peace" my ass.  Effectively, you are trolling me.

Trolls are those that have nothing of substance to offer, wish only to argue for the sake of argument, and have the technical prowess of a bowl of overcooked oatmeal.

Brad:

Here is your posting to RMS:

<<<
Hi Robert. Great video,but you missed something important in your test-that being the average voltage over the time of your test. Looking at your video,it would seem that your average current over the 4 minutes was around 74mA,and your average voltage was around ,94 volt's. So this would give you an average output of about 69.5mW during the 4 minutes. If we look at the Li Ion battery,i believe the voltage on those is around 3.6 volt's,and im sure it would supply a current of 74mA for that 4 minutes at the rated voltage. This means that the Li Ion battery would be putting out 266mW over that 4 minute run. There is also the fact that the Li Ion battery would continue to deliver this power over the hour,as it is well below it's amp hour rating,where as your EEDS can only deliver 1/4 that,and only for a time of 4 minutes. Remember-mAh means nothing without a voltage to go with it,as current itself is not a measure of power.
>>>

Really?  After six years of working on the bench and you say something as completely ridiculous as taking the "average current" and the "average voltage" to get "average power?"  I thought that you were supposed to get all of your learning done on the bench?

Then, you go on to say something just as ridiculous.  You make reference to a lithium battery and it's normal output voltage of 3.6 volts and that it "would continue to deliver this power over the hour."  But there is not any mention of a particular size of lithium battery at all.  Seemingly you are just plucking an imaginary lithium battery of an imaginary undetermined size right out of thin air and comparing it to RMS' small sample of his EESD device which is a specific size.  To say, "Li Ion battery would continue to deliver this power over the hour" is all fine and dandy when it's an imaginary battery of an imaginary size.  Hell, the lithium battery might be the size of a dump truck, who knows.

That "Rhodes bench" represents real academic excellence.

MileHigh

Quote from: poynt99 on July 08, 2016, 09:34:30 AM
Trolls are those that have nothing of substance to offer, wish only to argue for the sake of argument, and have the technical prowess of a bowl of overcooked oatmeal.

Yes-just like the clown that made post 279.

QuoteTrolls are those that have nothing of substance to offer

Yep-have not seen anything but words from said person-not even a simple JT in all his time here.

Quotewish only to argue for the sake of argument

Indeed. He will argue with any one that dose not agree with him.
If no one is arguing with him,he will step in,and make an argument out of nothing.

Quoteand have the technical prowess of a bowl of overcooked oatmeal.

And yes-had no idea how a simple component like a J/FET worked,and so this unknown was once again the creation of an argument.

Also happy to point out others mistakes 10+ months after the fact,but makes sure all hell breaks loose if any one should mention his mistakes more than once.


Brad

Brad:

QuoteYes-just like the clown that made post 279.

Post #279 is dead-on accurate and shows you to be a technical clown.

"the technical prowess of a bowl of overcooked oatmeal"

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2016, 09:51:27 AM
Brad:

Here is your posting to RMS:

<<<

>>>







MileHigh

QuoteReally?  After six years of working on the bench and you say something as completely ridiculous as taking the "average current" and the "average voltage" to get "average power?"  I thought that you were supposed to get all of your learning done on the bench?

Yea-you have a problem with that?
The problem you have with that,is you are once again looking at everything wrong--as you do often.
If you have(being delivered to a load) 12v @ 10 amps for 10 minutes,then 10v @ 8 amps for 10 minutes,and then 8v @ 6 amps for 10 minutes--what is the average power over the 30 minutes?
Were not looking at little pulses on a scope scoobydoo,we are looking at an average power output over a period of time,where both the voltage and current fall together.
Taking measurements of the voltage and current  at set time intervals over the duration of the test,will give us a graph where we can calculate the average power delivered to the load over that period of time.

QuoteThen, you go on to say something just as ridiculous.  You make reference to a lithium battery and it's normal output voltage of 3.6 volts and that it "would continue to deliver this power over the hour."  But there is not any mention of a particular size of lithium battery at all.  Seemingly you are just plucking an imaginary lithium battery of an imaginary undetermined size right out of thin air and comparing it to RMS' small sample of his EESD device which is a specific size.  To say, "Li Ion battery would continue to deliver this power over the hour" is all fine and dandy when it's an imaginary battery of an imaginary size.  Hell, the lithium battery might be the size of a dump truck, who knows.

And blah blah blah

QuoteThat "Rhodes bench" represents real academic excellence.

A lot more when you actually understand what the hell is going on,and a whole lot more than your bumbled attempt at the !great! resonance in a wine glass fiasco.

And all this self worship of your's,and your ridicule toward me,and you dont even have the guts to take me on in a simple JT challenge.
Your words mean nothing,and carry no weight at all MH--as they are nothing more than just words.
Your the man that would hide behind mommies back,when confronted by those you taunt--only now you hide behind the keyboard,as cowards like you do.


Brad

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
Brad:

Post #279 is dead-on accurate and shows you to be a technical clown.



MileHigh

Are you saying Poynt was talking about me?

Quote"the technical prowess of a bowl of overcooked oatmeal"

Lol-quite funny coming from some one who has no idea what a simple electronic component like a J/FET is lol.


Brad

Quote from: tinman on July 08, 2016, 10:26:27 AM
Are you saying Poynt was talking about me?

Lol-quite funny coming from some one who has no idea what a simple electronic component like a J/FET is lol.

Brad

You are still doing it, what a joke.  If you only understood how ridiculous you make yourself look.

Brad:

QuoteYea-you have a problem with that?

Yea, I have a problem with that.

QuoteTaking measurements of the voltage and current  at set time intervals over the duration of the test,will give us a graph where we can calculate the average power delivered to the load over that period of time.

It must be like the cartoons where your head gets hit by a big bell and you are back to normal because before you said, "it would seem that your average current over the 4 minutes was around 74mA,and your average voltage was around ,94 volt's. So this would give you an average output of about 69.5mW during the 4 minutes."

QuoteA lot more when you actually understand what the hell is going on,and a whole lot more than your bumbled attempt at the !great! resonance in a wine glass fiasco.

Whoops!  Now it feels like your head just got hit by a big bell _again_.  The bungling and the fiasco for the wine glass resonance question was all on your side.  You were unable to answer the two simple questions about resonance, do you remember?  And you still are so daft or so caught up in your inability to admit that you are wrong lest you have a nervous breakdown that you still insist that a struck bell is not resonating!  I think perhaps you need to be hit in the head by a big bell one more time and that might fix things.

MileHigh

QuoteYour words mean nothing,and carry no weight at all MH--as they are nothing more than just words.
Your the man that would hide behind mommies back,when confronted by those you taunt--only now you hide behind the keyboard,as cowards like you do.

The pen is mightier than the bench Brad and my words have real meaning.  "Just words" is a foolish statement typically made by a philistine that can't string five sentences together to make a logical argument.

I am not "hiding" behind the keyboard, I am right here.  You are behind a keyboard too, did you notice?  Making a stupid Joule Thief won't change anything.

Speaking of making logical arguments, what is the true size of your "triphene" device?

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2016, 10:28:04 AM
You are still doing it, what a joke.  If you only understood how ridiculous you make yourself look.

Wow MH
I have just been skimming through the JT 101 thread--you managed to get on the wrong side of just about every one on that thread,and yet the only one i had an argument with was you--as did most everyone else on that thread.

You should go back and read that whole thread again MH,and see what kind of trouble you caused.

!some! Quotes from other members toward you

MH's Lessons in Self-OU-Flagellation.

IMHO someone whom does not acknowledge that does not have a full understanding themselves, or maybe they are up to something else.

Your response to ramset indicates you seem to be incapable of simple yes or no answers to questions that only require a simple yes or no
for an answer, so I'm predicting your explanation will be a word salad.

Miles
your starting to look like a three day old Omelet

I think MH needs to explain a few things to US so that we can be sure he understands what things are

Are you claiming that it will NOT?
Ye who owns not a Joule Thief?

MileHigh - Youre fooling yourself with the same old childish one liners that the CIA Handbook taught you!
I am happy to donate $10 to the Shut Up MileHigh Fund!!!

Still an Idiot, no wonder no one takes you seriously!

MileHigh - Resorting to lies is not a very professional thing to do even for a CIA Troll.

But,You are wrong,, and as such you need to stop the games.



That was only from about 10 pages MH,and not one of them is from me--there all from most of the other members that were in that thread.
You should go re read the whole thread MH,and see what kind of a bone head you really were.

I will not post that post,where you used profanity never yet seen on this forum before,to that state that other members had to step in,and tell you to calm your language down.


Brad

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2016, 10:55:29 AM
The pen is mightier than the bench Brad and my words have real meaning.  "Just words" is a foolish statement typically made by a philistine that can't string five sentences together to make a logical argument.

I am not "hiding" behind the keyboard, I am right here.  You are behind a keyboard too, did you notice?  Making a stupid Joule Thief won't change anything.

Speaking of making logical arguments, what is the true size of your "triphene" device?

Ohhh,but it will MH.
This is your chance to show that the pen is mightier than the bench.

I am behind the keyboard MH,and im also winding a couple of toroid transformers,drinking coffee,transferring some movies from my computer to the external HD,and watching some cats fight out on my front lawn- all at the same time---what you doing ?


Brad

Quote from: poynt99 on July 08, 2016, 09:34:30 AM
Trolls are those that have nothing of substance to offer, wish only to argue for the sake of argument, and have the technical prowess of a bowl of overcooked oatmeal.

A forum is considered to be in a 'bad state' when the number of controversial posts consistently exceeds the norm.
Without active moderation little can be done and the forum quality will decline.

For a perspective I often point people to this article: Online Troll or Provocateur – A Necessary Evil? (http://bangthetable.com/2011/02/28/troll-or-provocateur/)

Quote from: MileHigh on July 08, 2016, 10:42:17 AM
Brad:





MileHigh

Quote
Yea, I have a problem with that.

To bad--live with it. ;)

QuoteIt must be like the cartoons where your head gets hit by a big bell and you are back to normal because before you said, "it would seem that your average current over the 4 minutes was around 74mA,and your average voltage was around ,94 volt's. So this would give you an average output of about 69.5mW during the 4 minutes."

Is that how it would seem ?.

QuoteWhoops!  Now it feels like your head just got hit by a big bell _again_.  The bungling and the fiasco for the wine glass resonance question was all on your side.  You were unable to answer the two simple questions about resonance, do you remember?  And you still are so daft or so caught up in your inability to admit that you are wrong lest you have a nervous breakdown that you still insist that a struck bell is not resonating!  I think perhaps you need to be hit in the head by a big bell one more time and that might fix things.

It would seem,that after reading the thread again,the only one that agreed with you was you lol
Others tried to point out the mistakes you made,but you would have none of that--MH knows better lol.


Brad

MH
Would seem a good time to show interest in "what and How" the group builds here as well as an opportunity to "teach".
and provide some balance to your technical contributions in the form of an actual Build ?

A simple PDF can be sent to previously mentioned member for assembly and testing ?

Surely not a more difficult task or commitment than the efforts you put in here on a day to day basis??

besides it might actually turn out to be fun...

??

Brad:

With respect to resonance and the wine glass questions I was absolutely correct.  You had been talking about resonance for years and when asked to actually explain what it was you didn't have the slightest clue and you were completely lost.  Now you know better.  With respect to the ideal coil and voltage source question, you didn't have the slightest clue and you were completely lost.  Now you know better.  Thanks to me you know better.

As far as the Joule Thief 101 thread goes, I said that there was no such thing as a "resonant Joule Thief" because a Joule Thief is a pulse circuit and has nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.  And as of this posting in July 2016 there isn't a resonant Joule Thief in sight.  It has been months now and there is no resonant Joule Thief, just like I said.

I told RMS that his "measurement" protocol was nonsense and his claims were false on the two clips that I looked at and that is true.  I have the moral high ground and what I said was correct.  And like usual, most people are just sheep and say nothing about fiascos like RMS.

I have plowed though hundreds and hundreds of your mistakes and misconceptions and made you a much more knowledgeable person and a better experimenter.  Certainly there are many others that have helped you also.

The root of everything I have done is good.  The intentions are good.  You can be a sourpus and sulk all you want, I really can't do anything about that.

Your supercapacitor clip is a lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for emulating RMS and demonstrating all by yourself one of the worst attributes of the free energy cottage industry that we all loathe; false claims.

MileHigh

Love and Pace to all members an guests,

once again, i am not interested in arguing with people.
My motivation is to learn.
To catch the beauty of physics.
That's my motivation to be a part of the community.

At this moment i have to thank the great builders in this forum like

Itzu, tinselkola, tinman, luc , EM Junkie, Erfinder, Wesley, Conrad and so many others.
Thank you very much for you YT Clips, thank you very much for your explanation.

Each new day i like to read the posts an view the vids.

BUT I DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE THAT ONLY TALK ABOUT THERE PERSONAL "ASS" RELATIONSHIP.

Dear Master Troll,
if you have a obsession with your ass, please consult a shrink.
Sorry, but your anal fixation is definitely  not welcome in my learning space.

If you are be able to focus at a question?
Does exist a difference between a ideal coil an a super conductive coil.
If there are a difference please teach me the basics.

I like to learn not to argue.

For that reason,
(Love+Peace)² to you MT

Love and Peace
3K

3K

You are just making a fool of yourself and acting like a troll yourself.  Time for you to move forward.

MileHigh

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg488046#msg488046 date=1467994058]



MileHigh

QuoteWith respect to resonance and the wine glass questions I was absolutely correct.  You had been talking about resonance for years and when asked to actually explain what it was you didn't have the slightest clue and you were completely lost.  Now you know better.

Unfortunately MH,you are still trying to come to grips with the difference between resonance and an object vibrating at it's natural resonant frequency.

 

QuoteWith respect to the ideal coil and voltage source question, you didn't have the slightest clue and you were completely lost.  Now you know better.  Thanks to me you know better.

Actually,there is no thanks to you at all.
I answered your question quite fine by my self,only in a way that you wanted it answered,and not in a way i think is correct.
You are of course,free to find your self an ideal coil,and an ideal voltage supply,and show us all that your !stipulated! answer is correct.

QuoteAs far as the Joule Thief 101 thread goes, I said that there was no such thing as a "resonant Joule Thief" because a Joule Thief is a pulse circuit and has nothing whatsoever to do with resonance.  And as of this posting in July 2016 there isn't a resonant Joule Thief in sight.  It has been months now and there is no resonant Joule Thief, just like I said.

Im not sure if you completely missed the boat about what that thread was about,or you were just board at the time?. The point being was,looking for a way to design and build a resonant JT-not a vibrating wine glass ;)

QuoteI told RMS that his "measurement" protocol was nonsense and his claims were false on the two clips that I looked at and that is true.  I have the moral high ground and what I said was correct.  And like usual, most people are just sheep and say nothing about fiascos like RMS.

And this is classic you MH.
After 10+ month's,you are still going on about some one's mistakes,but dare not anyone raise the issues about the J/FET ,or base/emitter-base/collector junction breakdown voltage,associated with the death spike-hey MH?.

QuoteI have plowed though hundreds and hundreds of your mistakes and misconceptions and made you a much more knowledgeable person and a better experimenter.  Certainly there are many others that have helped you also.

Yes,many have helped me out over the years MH,but still no TPU :D

Feel free to post just 10 of those mistakes i have made,that you corrected ;)

QuoteThe root of everything I have done is good.  The intentions are good.  You can be a sourpus and sulk all you want, I really can't do anything about that.

Im not sulking MH,i am just defending myself against your untruths.

QuoteYour supercapacitor clip is a lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for emulating RMS and demonstrating all by yourself one of the worst attributes of the free energy cottage industry that we all loathe; false claims.

See-defending myself against rubbish like the above.
Fact is,that cap held more than i stated ,in regards to energy density.
You watch a video ,where i charged the cap for 3 minutes,at a limited current value,and then went on to make some wackadoo calculations on how much energy the cap could actually hold.

I am truly amazed that you can make such calculations from a video clip,that in no way shape or form,was to carry out actual capacity measurements.
What kind of math did you use to do that?--unicorn math perhaps?.

I hope your mighty pen is put to paper,and that your master JT circuit is sent to said person for construction ;)
It would be good to see that you actually have the skill set you claim to have,and that your words are not just words.


Brad

Brad:

The resonance vs. natural resonant frequency pitch you are making is comical at this point in time.  Especially since I found two references that stated what I had been saying all along, there are two perfectly valid meanings for the term "resonance."  I have to assume that you went into brain fry mode when they were posted and all that you heard was sizzling static in your head.  But more importantly, and sadly, is your lack of ability to use your new understanding of what resonance actually is and then recognize it for yourself using your own intellect and innate ability to look at a situation and evaluate it all by yourself.

You were indeed a completely lost soul when it comes to the ideal coil and voltage source question.  You keep on believing whatever you think is correct.  And the search goes on in vain for the mythical "resonant Joule Thief."  It's somewhere out there, or is it just light refracting off of a  layer of hot air?  Since we don't hear about it I would think the search is lost in the sands of time.  And that led into the search for understanding about a resonant wine glass which was like some nightmare soap opera of the insane.

I will re-energize your hot neurons Brad, RMS came up because he made a fake clip about me where he lied through his teeth just a month ago.

Brad, Your supercapacitor clip is a lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for emulating RMS and demonstrating all by yourself one of the worst attributes of the free energy cottage industry that we all loathe; false claims.

QuoteYou watch a video ,where i charged the cap for 3 minutes,at a limited current value,and then went on to make some wackadoo calculations on how much energy the cap could actually hold.

My whackadoo calculations prove that your claim of 2600 Farads is pure BS.  Shame on you for making false claims.  You don't offer any calculations yourself, whackadoo or otherwise.  Nor do you offer up any measurements to substantiate your ridiculous claim.  And I asked you to explain your recent comments with six sentences strung together that construct a logical argument that makes sense and you can't do it.  And that all should be a lesson to every experimenter to not make bogus claims off of the top of their head like you did.

If you want to prove me wrong then tell us right here and now how you would go about testing the device to make a proper measurement.  C'mon Brad, this is hanging and the clip is still up.  Demonstrate your "bench smarts" - how would you measure the capacitance?

MileHigh

Brad:

From looking at your clip:

If the cap was truly 2600 farads you would have to be putting an average of 20 watts into the cap for three minutes to charge it, and your charging power starts at 0.17 watts and ends at nearly zero watts three minutes later.

Oops!  Perhaps you need to actually measure the capacitance of your device?

Here is what I said to RMS:

<<<
A Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads. The onus is on you to prove that is true - that your credit-card-sized capacitor is 2000 Farads because right now I do not believe it.
>>>

And you are claiming 2600 Farads in a device not much bigger than a large postage stamp!!!

Something does not jive daddy-o!!!

< Attached pic:  2600 Farad 2.5V Boostcap >

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 12:34:33 AM
Brad:

From looking at your clip:

If the cap was truly 2600 farads you would have to be putting an average of 20 watts into the cap for three minutes to charge it, and your charging power starts at 0.17 watts and ends at nearly zero watts three minutes later.

Oops!  Perhaps you need to actually measure the capacitance of your device?

Here is what I said to RMS:

<<<
A Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads. The onus is on you to prove that is true - that your credit-card-sized capacitor is 2000 Farads because right now I do not believe it.
>>>

And you are claiming 2600 Farads in a device not much bigger than a large postage stamp!!!

Something does not jive daddy-o!!!

< Attached pic:  2600 Farad 2.5V Boostcap >

MH
You do spend a lot of time proving nothing.

Here is some information on J/FETs,so as you dont make the same mistake twice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFET

And some info on resonant systems in and around an ICE--so as you dont make that mistake again.

And just in case you forget the true scientific meaning of resonance,just so as you dont get it mixed up with a wine glass vibrating at it's natural resonant frequency.

Quote: In physics, resonance describes when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.

Hope this all helps out in your learning curve MH.


Brad

Brad!

That is one suave bait and switch!  You are one cool cat.  Shaken not stirred!

How would you test your capacitor on the bench to determine the size?  Let's see your bench smarts in action on paper right now.

You built a mysterious capacitor of unknown value.  What would you do on the bench to measure the value of the capacitor?  What about measuring any other characteristics of the capacitor?  What are they and what would you do?

MileHigh

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg488109#msg488109 date=1468069720]




MileHigh
[/quote]

My capacitors were no good MH,as they began to degrade rapidly after only 50 odd cycles.
That is why i discontinued with them.

MH
I am not in agreeance with RMSs measurement's,and i stated that on his video.
But what i do like about RMS,is that he dose so much toward experimentation,so yes,i do support him,but i did not support his measurements in that video.

QuoteHow would you test your capacitor on the bench to determine the size?  Let's see your bench smarts in action on paper right now.

Well if i had the urge to do that,then i would graph the voltage across a load resistor over time,and then calculate the energy dissipated.

QuoteShaken not stirred

!

Yes,i enjoy a good James Bond movie as well ;)

QuoteYou built a mysterious capacitor of unknown value.

Yes i did,and you are correct--2600 farads was probably not the correct value of that cap.
The value was a rough calculation made against another super cap of 100 farads,and how long each would run the same load-that being that small DC motor in the video.
When i first made the cap,it would run the same motor 26 times longer than the 100 farad cap would with the same voltage across it--so yes,it was a rough guess MH.

Brad

So
will it be Pens or the  sword ?

Pistols at ten paces ??

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/03/05/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/

or a simple PDF ...

with gentlemen's rules

?

Quote from: ramset on July 09, 2016, 09:37:24 AM
So
will it be Pens or the  sword ?

Pistols at ten paces ??

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/03/05/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/ (http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/03/05/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/)

or a simple PDF ...

with gentlemen's rules

?

What is the challenge? Here's one:

1) 1.5V bench power source (not a battery)
2) 3 LED's (of agreed upon part number) in series.
3) The challenge: Light the 3 LED's with a circuit powered off the 1.5V supply. Correctly measure the input power (Pin from source) and output power (Pout power (total) dissipated by the 3 LED's). The highest Pout/Pin ratio wins.

Caveats:

a) The frequency of operation must be between 1kHz and 100kHz.
b) Total Pout (all 3 LEDs combined) must be 60mW minimum (greater than 60mW is fine).

My understanding is that itsu would offer his services as builder and tester for any circuit MH would come up with to go against Brad's circuit.

Brad:

Well, you get some Brownie points for being honest.  This business of running a small motor off of a capacitor is nothing more than a Robert Murray-Smith parlor trick.  He deserves a virtual beat down for that because from what I recall he made several clips seven or eight months ago where he makes an unsubstantiated claim of a capacitor size and the only thing he does in the clip is run a small motor.  I have no idea what he is doing more recently.

This was the death knell for RMS for me:  I told him politely that he made a totally whackadoo clip where he measured the current and he did not measure the voltage and he told me to piss off.  If he had apologized profusely for making such a stupid mistake and then redid a new clip then he would be doing the right thing - but he didn't.  Likewise, when I asked him for measurements to back up is claims about the capacitance of his devices he also told me to piss off.  If you noticed I also discussed some comments he made in the comment section of his clips where he is clueless.  I don't care what he is doing now, his credibility was destroyed for me seven months ago.  The ridiculous electric supercar press release makes the whole company look like a bunch of clowns.

QuoteWell if i had the urge to do that,then i would graph the voltage across a load resistor over time,and then calculate the energy dissipated.

Things related to this subject matter have been the topic of discussion for a long long time now.  Is that really the only thing you can offer up?  Where are your bench smarts?  Surely you can do better than that?  What about a real procedure to measure the capacitance of an unknown device and what about any other parameters?

MileHigh

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 10:09:20 AM
What is the challenge? Here's one:

1) 1.5V bench power source (not a battery)
2) 3 LED's (of agreed upon part number) in series.
3) The challenge: Light the 3 LED's with a circuit powered off the 1.5V supply. Correctly measure the input power (Pin from source) and output power (Pout power (total) dissipated by the 3 LED's). The highest Pout/Pin ratio wins.

Caveats:

a) The frequency of operation must be between 1kHz and 100kHz.
b) Total Pout (all 3 LEDs combined) must be 60mW minimum (greater than 60mW is fine).

My understanding is that itsu would offer his services as builder and tester for any circuit MH would come up with to go against Brad's circuit.

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that if I wanted to do it I would need to work on a bench to iterate on a design.  Since I have no bench and no desire to do it, it's not going to happen.  I can't just put something on paper without testing it and iterating on it myself.

However, I admire the way you formulated the challenge, it makes great sense.  Something similar should be done for a pulse motor build-off to make it more interesting.  Or what you just stated is perfect for a Joule Thief build-off.

MileHigh

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 10:09:20 AM
What is the challenge? Here's one:

1) 1.5V bench power source (not a battery)
2) 3 LED's (of agreed upon part number) in series.
3) The challenge: Light the 3 LED's with a circuit powered off the 1.5V supply. Correctly measure the input power (Pin from source) and output power (Pout power (total) dissipated by the 3 LED's). The highest Pout/Pin ratio wins.

Caveats:

a) The frequency of operation must be between 1kHz and 100kHz.
b) Total Pout (all 3 LEDs combined) must be 60mW minimum (greater than 60mW is fine).

My understanding is that itsu would offer his services as builder and tester for any circuit MH would come up with to go against Brad's circuit.

Sounds like fun :)


I have to ask though,why would it matter what LEDs we use,if we are measuring the power being delivered to them?.


Brad

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 10:31:29 AM
That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that if I wanted to do it I would need to work on a bench to iterate on a design.  Since I have no bench and no desire to do it, it's not going to happen.  I can't just put something on paper without testing it and iterating on it myself.

However, I admire the way you formulated the challenge, it makes great sense.  Something similar should be done for a pulse motor build-off to make it more interesting.  Or what you just stated is perfect for a Joule Thief build-off.

MileHigh

You could always simulate a design.

The design can be anything by the way; one of your own, something from an application note from Linear Technology, something COTS off ebay, you name it. Perhaps itsu has an idea of his own, and you two could collaborate on it?

Quote from: tinman on July 09, 2016, 10:39:27 AM
I have to ask though,why would it matter what LEDs we use,if we are measuring the power being delivered to them?.


Brad

To make it more fair, controlled, and comparable, the source and load should be the same. Different LEDs have different forward voltages etc., and using a different forward voltage might give an efficiency advantage.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 10:31:29 AM


However, I admire the way you formulated the challenge, it makes great sense.  Something similar should be done for a pulse motor build-off to make it more interesting.  Or what you just stated is perfect for a Joule Thief build-off.

MileHigh

QuoteThat all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that if I wanted to do it I would need to work on a bench to iterate on a design.  Since I have no bench and no desire to do it, it's not going to happen.  I can't just put something on paper without testing it and iterating on it myself.

MH

I have to say that i do understand what you have stated above,but at the same time,i am a little confused. Was it not you that stated that the pen was mightier than the bench?,but now you say you need the bench before you can put pen to paper ???

Anyway-Poynt
That challenge seems to good to let go to waste.
How about we make it a forum challenge?--where you join in as well ;)
Going by your parameters of the challenge,we are looking for the most efficient boost converter to run 3 LED's-yes?.


Brad

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 10:44:32 AM
To make it more fair, controlled, and comparable, the source and load should be the same. Different LEDs have different forward voltages etc., and using a different forward voltage might give an efficiency advantage.

Fair enough.
I only hope that i can get the LEDs you choose--maybe those big 10mm ones,although i have a heap of the 5mm ones from solar garden lights. ?

Brad

QuoteYou could always simulate a design.

The design can be anything by the way; one of your own, something from an application note from Linear Technology, something COTS off ebay, you name it. Perhaps itsu has an idea of his own, and you two could collaborate on it?

Any circuit (within reason) is fine by me, a joule thief like circuit comes in mind first to ramp up the 1.5V to something that will light the leds, or a switching PS like concept for higher efficiency.

Itsu

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 10:41:28 AM
You could always simulate a design.

The design can be anything by the way; one of your own, something from an application note from Linear Technology, something COTS off ebay, you name it. Perhaps itsu has an idea of his own, and you two could collaborate on it?

In another time or another era, I may have been interested.  But unfortunately not this time.

I figure you could emulate the DC-to-DC converter strategy of high-frequency switching to stay away from the resistive losses in the main coil.  However, there are switching losses also so perhaps slower switching with a big low-resistance coil would work also.  After all, you don't have to worry about any size or cost constraints for the coil or any other components for that matter.

I actually think sticking to a Joule-Thief-style architecture makes it more interesting.  Then you are constrained with the Joule Thief feedback mechanism and the inherent disadvantages associated with it.  So that pushes the designer to try to optimize the switching and the timing when constrained within the "box" of the Joule Thief architecture.

MileHigh

Quote from: tinman on July 09, 2016, 10:45:42 AM
MH

I have to say that i do understand what you have stated above,but at the same time,i am a little confused. Was it not you that stated that the pen was mightier than the bench?,but now you say you need the bench before you can put pen to paper ???

Brad

You are just being your pain-in-the-ass imp character and I am not amused.  The pen is mightier than the bench and the pen comes first.  It's time for a smack-down.

Let me translate that for you in the context of this discussion:  You learn knowledge in the classroom or by yourself or on the job.  That is "the pen."  Then you apply that knowledge by going on the bench.

I will give you an example:  You want to design a circuit to energize an inductor and then discharge the inductor into a load.  If you don't have the slightest clue how the inductor responds when you energize it by applying a voltage across it, how can you possibly make intelligent decisions and component choices when you are working on the bench?  Sound familiar?

You are also trying to conveniently forget something.

What is your test procedure for your supercapacitor?  You have said almost nothing, and in fact, much to your chagrin and loathing, your first response was pretty much junk.  Yes, I am pressing the button because the button had to be pressed.

Where are your "bench smarts?"  You say you have learned nearly everything on the bench.  How would you test a supercapacitor to measure it's size and any other parameters that you want to mention?  I am asking for a test procedure from you, not one lousy sentence.  Are you up to the challenge?

The whole world is watching Brad.

While it is very amusing to see you mates arguing back and forth, it has been a long time since anyone has actually posted any real empirical results. Some of the arguing and conjecturing (hand-waving, or maybe ****-waving   ;)   ) has to do with the Joule Thief circuits and their efficiency. So I decided to make up a test bed and do some testing.

The results so far are to be considered preliminary, but it looks like Circuit 2 is the efficiency winner, by a thin margin. It produces less brilliant light but on a lux per watt basis it wins.

I am running short on suitable toroids so I wound the inductor on a small pot-core setup. This is probably even better than using a toroid, and a heck of a lot easier to wind. Both L1 and L2 are 20 turns of #34 magnet wire.

I couldn't get my power supply to set precisely at 1.5 volts; the voltage monitor showed 1.62 volts for the tests I have run. I checked input voltage and current both with DMMs and with oscilloscope and got essentially the same results. The output ran one LumiLed super-efficent LED in my lightbox, with the ExTech LT300 lightmeter, with sensor 18 inches away from the LED. As you can see from the image of the test circuit below, all I had to do to change between the circuits was to flip the LED connector over and attach it to the other output pins. The actual position of the LED in the lightbox is exactly the same in both cases, there is absolutely no difference in the two setups except how the LED is connected to the board.

So, Circuit 1 ran at an average input power of 90 mW and produced 63.9 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 710 lux per Watt.
Circuit 2 ran at an average input power of 40 mW and produced 30.0 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 750 lux per Watt.
By eye, there was little difference in the brightness of the LED, even though in real terms #2 was half as bright as #1. Both circuits ran at a little over 12 kHz, but with very different waveforms (Collector wrt Emitter). I'll show the waveforms later on, perhaps also with a video of the testing.

So the efficiency winner in these preliminary tests is Circuit 2, by a thin margin. Brightness winner is #1 but will definitely drain the battery much faster.

Quote from: tinman on July 06, 2016, 07:04:01 AM

(snip)
For instance,the schematics below.
You say !your! JT circuit(1) is the most efficient,and i say circuit 2 is more efficient
(snip)

Brad

A second set of results at a lower input voltage of 1.52V:

Circuit 1 gave 49.3 Lux at an average input power of 54.6 mW for an efficiency of 903 Lux/Watt.
Circuit 2 gave 26.1 Lux at an average input power of 28 mW for an efficiency of 932 Lux/Watt.
Operating frequency is between 10 and 11 kHz.

Again, Circuit 2 is more efficient on an electric power to light basis, while Circuit 1 is brighter.


ETA: I've used 20 turns for both windings in the inductor. If anyone has suggestions as to different turns/turn ratios which might give different or better results, please let me know and I'll wind up a new coil set. The pot-core makes this easy as it has an internal bobbin that is easily replaced.

Well, I can easily see Brad having a braingasm from TK's posting so I will get a few words in edgewise.

One of the classic weaknesses on the forums is to use the term "efficiency" without even defining what it means.  Brad is someone that does this all the time.

Take a look at a Joule Thief.   Are we talking about electrical power in vs. electrical power out efficiency like Poynt just stated?  Or are we talking about electrical power in vs. light power out like TK just stated?

What about the LED itself?  Are you doing your "burn" at the optimum efficiency point for the LED where you get the most light out per milliwatt in?

How flat or sloped is the current discharge curve across the LED when you are doing a burn?  Does this have an impact on the power in to light out efficiency?

What about the flashing frequency and duty cycle and human perception of brightness?

What about the human perception of the light level?   How do you define an "adequate" level of light output from the Joule Thief?  Is it just bright enough to be a panel indicator light?  Or do you want a practical amount of light like a small night light?  Is there a sweet spot for human perception of the light output from a Joule Thief?

How you define efficiency for a Joule Thief is a big enough question for such a little circuit.  But it is what it is.

Just saying, "Wow, that looks like an efficient Joule Thief!" is essentially meaningless if you don't qualify it.

Quote(snip)
For instance,the schematics below.
You say !your! JT circuit(1) is the most efficient,and i say circuit 2 is more efficient
(snip)

Oh my god I must be wrong based on TK's data!  Brad is going to have a braingasm!

Why did I say that circuit #1 might be more efficient?

My line of thinking was as follows:  In circuit #1 when the LED is lit it is based on a discharge of the LED in series with the battery.  So the EMF from the battery is a "helper" to keep the LED lit.  So, it suggests to me that circuit #1 may be able to extract more energy from a nearly dead battery because it looks like it will run at lower battery voltages than circuit #2.  That will likely translate into a longer run time from the same battery.

How did I define "efficiency" for the "most efficient Joule Thief?"

The answer was the most efficient Joule Thief by my definition would be the one that has the longest run time and extracts the most possible energy from the nearly-dead battery.

I stated this to Brad multiple times but it never sank in.

Now we can go back into the holding pattern waiting for Brad's expected tsunami braingasm.

Brad:  I still would like to see your "bench smarts" measurement procedure for your supercapacitor.

   TinselKoala , with circuit 2 you could always strike a match to see if it's
   switched on!
    Warmest regards,John.

Well there we have it Chet. It's a no-go.

MH and TM will just have to keep bickering at each other I guess... :P

At even lower voltage, this time from a relatively fresh #357 button cell battery instead of the power supply, the efficiency reverses, with Circuit 1 being more efficient.

At 1.4 volts:
#1 gives 35.9 lux at 41.4 mW = 867 lux/watt
#2 gives 23.9 lux at 32.3 mW = 740 lux/watt

So, as usual... both TinMan and MileHigh are right, and wrong... depending.

;D

Quote from: minnie on July 09, 2016, 05:38:54 PM


   TinselKoala , with circuit 2 you could always strike a match to see if it's
   switched on!
    Warmest regards,John.

No need for that! Both circuits make the LED I'm using "blindingly bright" when viewed by eye. I'm barely able to see the difference in brightness, but the lightmeter tells the tale.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2016, 06:20:56 PM
No need for that! Both circuits make the LED I'm using "blindingly bright" when viewed by eye. I'm barely able to see the difference in brightness, but the lightmeter tells the tale.

Phasers on blindingly bright....

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 05:34:35 PM

Take a look at a Joule Thief.   Are we talking about electrical power in vs. electrical power out efficiency like Poynt just stated?  Or are we talking about electrical power in vs. light power out like TK just stated?

What about the LED itself?  Are you doing your "burn" at the optimum efficiency point for the LED where you get the most light out per milliwatt in?

Hi MH
I had a recent experience that is very relevant to this. I was in China at a lighting manufacturer who we are having build some lighting technologies using our Hydra-Cell. I had with me a simple Dc to DC converter designed by the late Mark E , a water cell and a lux meter with 3 leds in a tube attached.
The Chinese engineers said they had designed a more efficient board according to the volts/amps in and volt/amps out. So we tested there using the water cell and the lux meter measuring light output. We measured 570 units of light. We then put in the Mark E board and measured 1270 units of light. They are still dumb founded. So measuring light output vs electrical sheds a whole ne light onto things.


The led we used has an efficiency of 180 lumens per watt in this case. It is always important to use the same led when testing and the optimum power that led has been designed for


We have also tested many variations of the Joule Thief and the closest was about 85% as efficient according to light output.
In the case I just explained the light output was what we wanted as it is being applied to a lighting product.
Many other variable can come into play.


The trick in this case was the circuit extracted the maximum energy available out of the cell by forcing it to operate at the optimum voltage we had established by power characterization testing.


I hope my experience helps to understand that there are many other variables in the equation when comparing light output to electrical output.


PS TK has some knowledge of what I am talking about


Kind Regards
Mark Dansie

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 05:34:35 PM
Well, I can easily see Brad having a braingasm from TK's posting so I will get a few words in edgewise.

One of the classic weaknesses on the forums is to use the term "efficiency" without even defining what it means.  Brad is someone that does this all the time.

Take a look at a Joule Thief.   Are we talking about electrical power in vs. electrical power out efficiency like Poynt just stated?  Or are we talking about electrical power in vs. light power out like TK just stated?

What about the LED itself?  Are you doing your "burn" at the optimum efficiency point for the LED where you get the most light out per milliwatt in?

How flat or sloped is the current discharge curve across the LED when you are doing a burn?  Does this have an impact on the power in to light out efficiency?

What about the flashing frequency and duty cycle and human perception of brightness?

What about the human perception of the light level?   How do you define an "adequate" level of light output from the Joule Thief?  Is it just bright enough to be a panel indicator light?  Or do you want a practical amount of light like a small night light?  Is there a sweet spot for human perception of the light output from a Joule Thief?

How you define efficiency for a Joule Thief is a big enough question for such a little circuit.  But it is what it is.

Just saying, "Wow, that looks like an efficient Joule Thief!" is essentially meaningless if you don't qualify it.

Oh my god I must be wrong based on TK's data!  Brad is going to have a braingasm!

Why did I say that circuit #1 might be more efficient?

My line of thinking was as follows:  In circuit #1 when the LED is lit it is based on a discharge of the LED in series with the battery.  So the EMF from the battery is a "helper" to keep the LED lit.  So, it suggests to me that circuit #1 may be able to extract more energy from a nearly dead battery because it looks like it will run at lower battery voltages than circuit #2.  That will likely translate into a longer run time from the same battery.

How did I define "efficiency" for the "most efficient Joule Thief?"

The answer was the most efficient Joule Thief by my definition would be the one that has the longest run time and extracts the most possible energy from the nearly-dead battery.

I stated this to Brad multiple times but it never sank in.

Now we can go back into the holding pattern waiting for Brad's expected tsunami braingasm.

Brad:  I still would like to see your "bench smarts" measurement procedure for your supercapacitor.

You bring up lots of valid points wrt "efficiency" of a JT type flashing/pulsing light. There are many many variables to be considered, both in the circuit itself (like number of turns, core material, impedance of power source, etc) and in the behaviour of the LED, the lightmeter, etc. As far as I can tell this lightmeter is doing a pretty good integrating of the 9-13 kHz flashing of the LED so I mostly believe in its readings. I don't have "threshold" operation levels yet, that is I don't know the low voltage limit of the two circuits. It seems to be the case that the supply impedance affects the efficiency (my definition, Lux/watt input power) but I'll have to do more testing to see how much. (Power supply vs battery have different impedances.) Then there is the matter of the turns ratio of the inductor. Then again, the different waveforms that the oscilloscope sees on the input current measured across the 0.1 ohm CSR in the two cases may be affecting the calculations of the average input power, although I've made the computation using DMM measurements and they agree with the scope measures to within 10 percent or so.

So nobody should take my measurements as "solving" the issue or supporting either side of the argument _at this point_. At best, I am trying to establish a reasonable testing protocol that can be used to track down the effects of the various variables in the experiment.

Poynt
Quote
Well there we have it Chet. It's a no-go.

MH and TM will just have to keep bickering at each other I guess...

end quote.

Well I commend you for your thoughtful input ,and it is quite obvious you can see a path towards this taking place
and I know itsu would be able to work hand in hand with MH to assist in the necessary bench test for dialing in his circuit.

itsu has done this "bench time" very well with Verpies and others.

However
There is definitely a high anxiety level ATM.
------------------
Compliments to Tinsel for his Input !!

we shall see??

Respectfully
Chet

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2016, 04:47:51 PM
While it is very amusing to see you mates arguing back and forth, it has been a long time since anyone has actually posted any real empirical results. Some of the arguing and conjecturing (hand-waving, or maybe ****-waving   ;)   ) has to do with the Joule Thief circuits and their efficiency. So I decided to make up a test bed and do some testing.

The results so far are to be considered preliminary, but it looks like Circuit 2 is the efficiency winner, by a thin margin. It produces less brilliant light but on a lux per watt basis it wins.

I am running short on suitable toroids so I wound the inductor on a small pot-core setup. This is probably even better than using a toroid, and a heck of a lot easier to wind. Both L1 and L2 are 20 turns of #34 magnet wire.

I couldn't get my power supply to set precisely at 1.5 volts; the voltage monitor showed 1.62 volts for the tests I have run. I checked input voltage and current both with DMMs and with oscilloscope and got essentially the same results. The output ran one LumiLed super-efficent LED in my lightbox, with the ExTech LT300 lightmeter, with sensor 18 inches away from the LED. As you can see from the image of the test circuit below, all I had to do to change between the circuits was to flip the LED connector over and attach it to the other output pins. The actual position of the LED in the lightbox is exactly the same in both cases, there is absolutely no difference in the two setups except how the LED is connected to the board.

So, Circuit 1 ran at an average input power of 90 mW and produced 63.9 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 710 lux per Watt.
Circuit 2 ran at an average input power of 40 mW and produced 30.0 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 750 lux per Watt.
By eye, there was little difference in the brightness of the LED, even though in real terms #2 was half as bright as #1. Both circuits ran at a little over 12 kHz, but with very different waveforms (Collector wrt Emitter). I'll show the waveforms later on, perhaps also with a video of the testing.

So the efficiency winner in these preliminary tests is Circuit 2, by a thin margin. Brightness winner is #1 but will definitely drain the battery much faster.

Great test TK,and of course the results are as expected.
As  i pointed out to MH,the second circuit eliminates the losses associated with charging the battery also,when a battery is used in place of your PSU. The battery will produce more waste heat,when being discharged and charged continuously,and also there are the internal resistive losses that grow as the battery voltage drops.


Brad

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2016, 06:44:26 PM
You bring up lots of valid points wrt "efficiency" of a JT type flashing/pulsing light. There are many many variables to be considered, both in the circuit itself (like number of turns, core material, impedance of power source, etc) and in the behaviour of the LED, the lightmeter, etc. As far as I can tell this lightmeter is doing a pretty good integrating of the 9-13 kHz flashing of the LED so I mostly believe in its readings. I don't have "threshold" operation levels yet, that is I don't know the low voltage limit of the two circuits. It seems to be the case that the supply impedance affects the efficiency (my definition, Lux/watt input power) but I'll have to do more testing to see how much. (Power supply vs battery have different impedances.) Then there is the matter of the turns ratio of the inductor. Then again, the different waveforms that the oscilloscope sees on the input current measured across the 0.1 ohm CSR in the two cases may be affecting the calculations of the average input power, although I've made the computation using DMM measurements and they agree with the scope measures to within 10 percent or so.

So nobody should take my measurements as "solving" the issue or supporting either side of the argument _at this point_. At best, I am trying to establish a reasonable testing protocol that can be used to track down the effects of the various variables in the experiment.

@ TK

Please know that these two circuits are not the set parameters to this !friendly! competition.
As far as im concerned,both of those circuits are quite poor efficiency wise.

Also,could you post a schematic of your power measurement points,as circuit 1 is much harder to calculate,as the battery is also in series with the inductor and LED,and so some of that light output also includes energy from the battery,and so that must also be taken into account when calculating P/in. Circuit 2 is much easier to calculate total P/in,as it excludes the battery during the off part of the cycle(transistor open). So when you are calculating P/in,in circuit 1,you must also include the energy that the battery supplies to the LED during the off time of the transistor,as it is in series with the other current source--that being the inductor,and so the LED is driven by both the stored energy in the inductor,plus some from the battery as well.

This gets even harder to calculate,as during the off time of the transistor,the battery is also trying to recover a little as well,which can also created the elusion that the battery is actually being charged during the off time of the transistor.


Brad

Thanks

Quote from: tinman on July 09, 2016, 08:15:17 PM
Great test TK,and of course the results are as expected.
As  i pointed out to MH,the second circuit eliminates the losses associated with charging the battery also,when a battery is used in place of your PSU. The battery will produce more waste heat,when being discharged and charged continuously,and also there are the internal resistive losses that grow as the battery voltage drops.

Brad

Nope, what you say above doesn't make any sense at all.  First of all, you had a serious serious case of scrambled brains when you wrote that.  It's a double whammy.  I will unscramble it first, and then explain to you how it is still "scrambled" and doesn't make any sense at all.

For starters, I am going to put on my secret decoder ring:

<<<
As I pointed out to MH, the second circuit eliminates the internal resistive losses associated with discharging the battery during the transistor OFF cycle when the LED is being lit.  In the first circuit the battery will produce more internal resistive losses when being discharged continuously.  For both circuits the internal resistive losses increase as the battery voltage drops.
>>>

Brad, your text is so messed up that I am not even sure if I decoded it properly.

Moving on, you are not seeing the forest for the trees.  It doesn't really make a difference with respect to the internal losses in the battery for either circuit, your logic is flawed.  In BOTH cases, when power is being drawn from the battery, there are internal losses in the battery.  The fact that the current draw for the second circuit toggles ON and OFF makes no difference, there are STILL internal losses in the battery when the transistor is ON.

Look at TK's numbers.  The first circuit draws roughly twice the amount of current and produces roughly twice the amount of light.  If you could change the timing in the first circuit and slow it down so it draws the same amount of current as the second circuit, then chances are the LED would be about the same brightness.

So, supposing that you do that, then what do you have in terms of internals losses in the battery for each case?  Well, the current draw is the same so presumably the internal losses in the battery are approximately the same.

I am not going to speculate on further subtleties, that would have to be investigated for real on the bench.  The point that I am making is that your logic is flawed and doesn't make sense.  You have to think these things through and not just jump on what you first think is true.

MileHigh

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg488141#msg488141 date=1468100075]

QuoteWell, I can easily see Brad having a braingasm from TK's posting so I will get a few words in edgewise.

Oh MH--please.
No need to be so childish. I know circuit 2 is more efficient through bench tests,and also for reasons i have already given to you regarding I/R battery losses.

QuoteOne of the classic weaknesses on the forums is to use the term "efficiency" without even defining what it means.  Brad is someone that does this all the time.

When it comes to the JT,then it would be maximum light out as determined by visual reference-per watt in. It would also be the ability to produce actual maximum light out per watt in,and last but not least,be able to drain as much as the remaining battery energy as possible.

QuoteMy line of thinking was as follows:  In circuit #1 when the LED is lit it is based on a discharge of the LED in series with the battery.  So the EMF from the battery is a "helper" to keep the LED lit.

That is correct,and i suspect that TK did not take this into account when making his calculations on P/in in circuit 1,as the battery is also delivering energy to the LED during the off time of the transistor,as it is in series with the inductor and LED. When this is added to the P/in calculations,you will see circuit 1's efficiency drops right off.

QuoteSo, it suggests to me that circuit #1 may be able to extract more energy from a nearly dead battery because it looks like it will run at lower battery voltages than circuit #2.  That will likely translate into a longer run time from the same battery.

That would be easy to test.

QuoteHow did I define "efficiency" for the "most efficient Joule Thief?"

The answer was the most efficient Joule Thief by my definition would be the one that has the longest run time and extracts the most possible energy from the nearly-dead battery.

I stated this to Brad multiple times but it never sank in.

LOL--now there is a big load of crap MH.
Was it not me that suggested using the J/FET ::),in order to make a JT that would extract most of the remaining energy from a battery,only to have you say that that made no sense at all.
Was it not me that posted videos showing how low i could get the voltage,and yet still have the JT circuit running-->remember your death spike saga ?. Would not a JT circuit capable of running on the lowest voltage,not extract the most remaining energy from a battery?.

In fact,your statement above is absolute rubbish,and those that were a part of that JT thread will know your talking crap. When most of us tried to explain to you the relevance of having a variable resistor on the base,so as it could be adjusted as the battery voltage dropped,you just got your back up,and said that the JT circuit has a fixed 1k ohm resistor to the base,as it is designed to run on 1.5 volts.

So stop your crap talk and lies MH,as people can see that what you are saying is absolute rubbish.

Quote post 254: 
And the pen is mightier than the bench - it is.  Suck on that and stop sounding like a miserable sourpus.

Quote post 286:

QuoteThe pen is mightier than the bench Brad and my words have real meaning.

Quote post 304:
That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that if I wanted to do it I would need to work on a bench to iterate on a design.  Since I have no bench and no desire to do it, it's not going to happen.  I can't just put something on paper without testing it and iterating on it myself.

QuoteNow we can go back into the holding pattern waiting for Brad's expected tsunami braingasm.

Well some one had one MH,and im pretty sure it was not me :D

Seems your pen is no longer so mighty MH.


Brad

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 09:24:08 PM
Nope, what you say above doesn't make any sense at all.  First of all, you had a serious serious case of scrambled brains when you wrote that.  It's a double whammy.  I will unscramble it first, and then explain to you how it is still "scrambled" and doesn't make any sense at all.

For starters, I am going to put on my secret decoder ring:

<<<
As I pointed out to MH, the second circuit eliminates the losses associated with discharging the battery during the transistor OFF cycle when the LED is being lit.  In the first circuit the battery will produce more waste heat when being discharged continuously. For both circuits there are the internal resistive losses that grow as the battery voltage drops.
>>>

Brad, your text is so messed up that I am not even sure if I decoded it properly.

Moving on, you are not seeing the forest for the trees.  It doesn't really make a difference with respect to the internal losses in the battery for either circuit, your logic is flawed.  In BOTH cases, when power is being drawn from the battery, there are internal losses in the battery.  The fact that the current draw for the second circuit toggles ON and OFF makes no difference, there are STILL internal losses in the battery when the transistor is ON.

Look at TK's numbers.  The first circuit draws roughly twice the amount of current and produces roughly twice the amount of light.  If you could change the timing in the first circuit and slow it down so it draws the same amount of current as the second circuit, then chances are the LED would be about the same brightness.

So, supposing that you do that, then what do you have in terms of internals losses in the battery for each case?  Well, the current draw is the same so presumably the internal losses in the battery are approximately the same.

I am not going to speculate on further subtleties, that would have to be investigates for real on the bench.  The point that I am making is that your logic is flawed and doesn't make sense.  You have to think these things through and not just jump on what you first think is true.

MileHigh

MH

You really are lost,and it is becoming more apparent each day as to how little you understand the simple JT circuit.
The battery is also a resistor,and as the voltage drops,the internal resistance grows,and so do the I/R losses associated with that battery.

In the second circuit,these losses are only had when the transistor is on.
In the first circuit(your circuit) these battery I/R losses are not only included when the transistor is on,but they are also included when the transistor is off.

During the off time of the transistor in circuit 2,the current loop excludes the battery,and thus the losses associated with the batteries internal resistance.
In the first circuit(your circuit) the battery becomes part of the current loop during the off time of the transistor,and so also includes the I/R losses associated with the battery.

Why you find this so hard to understand-i guess we will never know.\


Brad

Brad:

Like I just did an unscramble and decode of what you said in posting #324, your logic is flawed and makes no sense.

I seriously doubt that TK made a mistake in his power measurements.  It doesn't make any sense.  All that he had to do was scope the voltage and current from the power supply for both circuits.

QuoteWas it not me that suggested using the J/FET (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=7d708595a2e6329b7e3df5aee3a14e4c0066385e),in order to make a JT that would extract most of the remaining energy from a battery,only to have you say that that made no sense at all.

Like I said, I think the chances are nearly zero that that will ever happen.

QuoteIn fact,your statement above is absolute rubbish,and those that were a part of that JT thread will know your talking crap. When most of us tried to explain to you the relevance of having a variable resistor on the base,so as it could be adjusted as the battery voltage dropped,you just got your back up,and said that the JT circuit has a fixed 1k ohm resistor to the base,as it is designed to run on 1.5 volts.

I was not talking crap at all.  I tried desperately to explain to you what the true reason for having a base resistor was but you would have nothing to do with that, it was pure willful ignorance on your part.

QuoteSo stop your crap talk and lies MH,as people can see that what you are saying is absolute rubbish.

You are just talking stupid gratuitous foolish idiocy, you need to blow off some steam and thar she blows!

QuoteSeems your pen is no longer so mighty MH.

My pen is absolutely fine.  You need to work on thinking straight and being able to string five sentences together that make sense.  Those are some of your biggest problems.

MileHigh

Quote from: tinman on July 09, 2016, 09:53:09 PM
MH

You really are lost,and it is becoming more apparent each day as to how little you understand the simple JT circuit.
The battery is also a resistor,and as the voltage drops,the internal resistance grows,and so do the I/R losses associated with that battery.

In the second circuit,these losses are only had when the transistor is on.
In the first circuit(your circuit) these battery I/R losses are not only included when the transistor is on,but they are also included when the transistor is off.

During the off time of the transistor in circuit 2,the current loop excludes the battery,and thus the losses associated with the batteries internal resistance.
In the first circuit(your circuit) the battery becomes part of the current loop during the off time of the transistor,and so also includes the I/R losses associated with the battery.

Why you find this so hard to understand-i guess we will never know.\

Brad

Okay Brad, here we go.

For starters, you are just playing a game when you say, "You really are lost,and it is becoming more apparent each day as to how little you understand the simple JT circuit."  It's all complete crap and you know it and everybody knows it.  It's a defensive measure by mounting a fake offense, nothing more than that.  It's you making a shameless spectacle of yourself.

Secondly, it's the old cliche at this point.  What I said to you passed right though you like you weren't even there.  That puts you and your understanding in question, again.  It's like you have an aerogel brain, and an idea can travel for 14 light-years though your head before it strikes a neuron.

QuoteIn the second circuit,these losses are only had when the transistor is on.
In the first circuit(your circuit) these battery I/R losses are not only included when the transistor is on,but they are also included when the transistor is off.

Yes, but if the two circuits have the same average current draw, that means by definition that there must be a higher current draw when the transistor is ON in the second circuit.  Higher current draw equals higher internal losses when the transistor is ON.

So you have a case of lower internal losses with continuous current flow and higher internal losses when the current flow toggles ON and OFF.  They balance out.  It's like six of one and half a dozen of the other.  How many light-years will this concept have to travel in Brad's brain before it hits a neuron?

QuoteWhy you find this so hard to understand-i guess we will never know.

I think we know why you find this so hard to understand.  You have to work on improving your ability to analyze and think beyond just your first impressions.  You have to work on applying the knowledge that you already possess.   You have to work on reading and understanding what people say to you.  And you most certainly have to work on your language skills so you can express yourself properly.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 10:41:49 PM
Okay Brad, here we go.

For starters, you are just playing a game when you say, "You really are lost,and it is becoming more apparent each day as to how little you understand the simple JT circuit."  It's all complete crap and you know it and everybody knows it.  It's a defensive measure by mounting a fake offense, nothing more than that.  It's you making a shameless spectacle of yourself.

Secondly, it's the old cliche at this point.  What I said to you passed right though you like you weren't even there.  That puts you and your understanding in question, again.  It's like you have an aerogel brain, and an idea can travel for 14 light-years though your head before it strikes a neuron.







MileHigh

QuoteYes, but if the two circuits have the same average current draw, that means by definition that there must be a higher current draw when the transistor is ON in the second circuit.  Higher current draw equals higher internal losses when the transistor is ON.

Only not ::)

Quote TK:==PSU
So, Circuit 1 ran at an average input power of 90 mW and produced 63.9 lux at the sensor
Circuit 2 ran at an average input power of 40 mW and produced 30.0 lux at the sensor

Quote TK:==battery
Circuit 1 gave 49.3 Lux at an average input power of 54.6 mW for an efficiency of 903 Lux/Watt.
Circuit 2 gave 26.1 Lux at an average input power of 28 mW for an efficiency of 932 Lux/Watt.

Now why do you suppose that is MH?  ::)

QuoteSo you have a case of lower internal losses with continuous current flow and higher internal losses when the current flow toggles ON and OFF.  They balance out.  It's like six of one and half a dozen of the other.  How many light-years will this concept have to travel in Brad's brain before it hits a neuron?

Yep--you are lost.
In fact,i cant even believe i am reading this from you,it is like you went from some sort of reality,to a land of MH dreams. Do you have any idea as to how high the internal resistance go's in a AA battery when the voltage is down around .9 volts MH ?--lets see your mighty pen work that one out without the bench. Well i do know the answer to that MH,and i know it because i can measure it on the bench. So give it a shot MH,show us how mighty your pen is without the bench,and give us a round about internal resistance value of a AA battery at around 900mV--lets not get to carried away with different types of batteries ATM,just use an eveready heavy duty battery as an example.

QuoteI think we know why you find this so hard to understand.  You have to work on improving your ability to analyze and think beyond just your first impressions.  You have to work on applying the knowledge that you already possess.   You have to work on reading and understanding what people say to you.  And you most certainly have to work on your language skills so you can express yourself properly.

My language skills are just fine that you MH,and the fact that you keep bringing that up,is just a sign of weakness.
It is also true that it is you that dose not listen to others--you know,the guys on the bench.
It is also becoming very apparent that i could indeed run rings around you on the bench.

MH,i have made this very easy for you to follow and understand.
Below are the two circuits,where in both cases the same amount of energy will be delivered to the inductor--lets say 100mJ of energy. I have included the batteries internal resistance that i measured !on the bench! of a normal alkaline battery with 900mV across it,and subtracted 10% of that calculated value for error margin.
Now we have the inductor in both cases storing the same amount of energy.
Can you please tell everyone here,which circuit will deliver the greatest amount of that stored energy to the LED?.

It is extremely clear MH that you throw all common sense out the window,when you need to be right outways your intelligence.
I can also see now,why you will not take me on in a simple little JT challenge--even when some one else was going to do the building for you. All you had to do,was put your !claimed! knowledge to paper-->you know,that mighty pen ::)

So MH,i am afraid that i have clearly shown that the bench just kicked your ass ;),and that my learning's on the bench just showed how your pen was not even in the race.
I am still amazed at how you made such a blunder,and as to how you came up with circuit 1 being more efficient(in any way) than circuit 2.

For me, there are only two outstanding issues and I will mention them again and I will put them in a better sequence this time:

1.  MH gets up the learning curve and understands as to how the JT circuit work's,and can be made more efficient,and clearly demonstrates that he understands what he is doing.
2.  MH admits that he is wrong when he stated that circuit 1 is more efficient than circuit 2.


Brad

author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg488167#msg488167 date=1468116506]

QuoteI seriously doubt that TK made a mistake in his power measurements.  It doesn't make any sense.  All that he had to do was scope the voltage and current from the power supply for both circuits.

Indeed,and when he carried out the power measurements while using the power supply,circuit 2 was more efficient at various voltages.
BUT-when he carried out those same measurements while using a battery,the outcome was the reverse :o
Now,why do you suppose that was MH?
I wonder if TK took into account as to how,or what the current was traveling through during the off time in each test in circuit 1  ;)
If the two test were carried out where the supply voltages where the same,then what changed between the PSU and battery?
You say i should use my brain a bit better?,well perhaps you should use yours a little better,and think before plastering such rubbish all over this thread.

Quoteyour logic is flawed and makes no sense.

My logic is just fine,but seems your has gone missing.

QuoteI was not talking crap at all.  I tried desperately to explain to you what the true reason for having a base resistor was but you would have nothing to do with that, it was pure willful ignorance on your part.

And it is rubbish MH.
The less resistive losses you have in a circuit,the more efficient that circuit becomes.
I so wish you would have taken up the challenge presented to you MH,but know i see why you did not want to go there.

QuoteYou are just talking stupid gratuitous foolish idiocy, you need to blow off some steam and thar she blows!

It would seem ATM MH,that your boiler has exploded.

QuoteMy pen is absolutely fine.  You need to work on thinking straight and being able to string five sentences together that make sense.  Those are some of your biggest problems.

Only you have a problem understanding MH--no one else dose.


Brad

Brad:

QuoteOnly you have a problem understanding MH--no one else dose.

You don't know that.  If nobody says anything you don't know one way or the the other.  Critical thinking skills, Brad, say something that makes logical sense.

Look at this mangled pathetic excuse for the English language:

QuoteAs  i pointed out to MH,the second circuit eliminates the losses associated with charging the battery also,when a battery is used in place of your PSU. The battery will produce more waste heat,when being discharged and charged continuously,and also there are the internal resistive losses that grow as the battery voltage drops.

You've got problems.  You can't even get "charging" vs. "discharging" right in your head.  The second sentence is an illogical disaster.

I asked you how you would measure a supercapacitor on your bench and you had nothing to say except for one obtuse and near-ridiculous statement.  So that is telling me you can't conceptualize by yourself how to measure the size of a supercapacitor and any other possible parameters.  So much for your "bench smarts," you are coming up goose eggs for the capacitor question.

So, knowing that, please tell me how you measured the output resistance of your battery.  I take nothing for granted with you and you will have to state how you did it so I can verify that you got it right.  And there is another challenge for you.  Don't you dare rattle off one vague and ambiguous sentence.  You have to properly articulate how you go about measuring the output resistance of a battery.  You have to put a sequence of sentences together that actually make proper sense.

MileHigh

Okay Brad.

Let's just sample some approximate numbers and work out a very simple problem for illustrative purposes.

Let's say we have a source voltage of 1.5 volts and an output impedance of seven ohms.
Let's say that we have circuit #1 that draws 50 milliwatts from the power supply and draws continuous DC current.
Let's say that we have circuit #2 that draws 50 milliwatts from the power supply and draws current with an 80% ON time and a 20% OFF time.

Let's examine these two circuits.

Circuit #1:

The current is 0.050/1.5 = 33.3 milliamps
The power lost in the internal resistance of seven ohms is 0.0333^2 x 7 = 7.78 milliwatts

Circuit #2:

We know from above that the average current is 33.3 milliamps.
Therefore the ON current for 80% of the time is 0.0333 x 5/4 = 41.7 milliamps.
The power lost to the internal resistance of seven ohms is 0.0417^2 x 7 x 4/5 = 9.72 miliwatts

Well look at that Brad.  When you put the two circuits on an even playing field where they draw the same amount of power from the fixed 1.5 volt power supply, circuit #2 that has the 80% ON, 20% OFF duty cycle has more losses due to the internal resistance of seven ohms.

Brad, I have made this very easy for you to follow and understand.

MileHigh

 author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg488175#msg488175 date=1468128463]

QuoteYou've got problems.  You can't even get "charging" vs. "discharging" right in your head.  The second sentence is an illogical disaster.

As i said MH,only you think there is a problem with how i word thing's,as you have no idea as to how the JT work's when the battery is included in the inductive kickback circuit.

QuoteYou don't know that.  If nobody says anything you don't know one way or the the other.  Critical thinking skills, Brad, say something that makes logical sense.

A classic example where my thinking is spot on,and yours is Miles off.

QuoteLook at this mangled pathetic excuse for the English language:

As  i pointed out to MH,the second circuit eliminates the losses associated with charging the battery also,when a battery is used in place of your PSU. The battery will produce more waste heat,when being discharged and charged continuously,and also there are the internal resistive losses that grow as the battery voltage drops.

Everything i said in that statement is correct MH,and even a grad 1 school kid would understand it.
The reason that you do not understand it,is because you have no understanding as to how !your! JT circuit works.

QuoteSo, knowing that, please tell me how you measured the output resistance of your battery.  I take nothing for granted with you and you will have to state how you did it so I can verify that you got it right.

Lol
I most certainly do not need your verification MH on anything,and more so now that i have seen just how limited your understanding on a simple circuit really is.

QuoteAnd there is another challenge for you.  Don't you dare rattle off one vague and ambiguous sentence.  You have to properly articulate how you go about measuring the output resistance of a battery.  You have to put a sequence of sentences together that actually make proper sense.

And again--making demands.
Like i said MH,i in no way have to bow down to your demands,or have you judge me on if i have it right or not.
You clearly have lost the race,and are now struggling to keep your head above water.
You know how it looks ,when an amature hobbyist like myself has to explain a simple circuits operation to some one like your self--a self acclaimed guru,who is now struggling for air,as he slowly sinks to the bottom.

I posted two schematics that represent the two circuit's,and gave a valid reason as to why circuit 2 was more efficient,but i see you avoided that like the plague,and we all know why.

Like i said,there is two reasons you did not take me up on my challenge.
1-you know the bench is mightier than the pen,as you said your self,you would need a bench before putting pen to paper.
2- You know that i would wipe the floor with you,and this much has become apparent from the foolishness of your claim that circuit 1 would be more efficient than circuit 2.

TK's power measurements are off when the battery is used,and when he has a good think about it,i bet you he will be back,and tell us what he found,or overlooked when he made those power measurements-on the assumption that he reads these last few posts.
This is something you would not do,as you would have no idea as to where to look--why the efficiency swap between the two circuits,when the battery was used in place of the PSU.
These are things i know,due to time on the bench MH,and things you are blind toward--as is evident by your insistence that circuit 1 will be more efficient.
And so that is the difference between bench workers and pen pushers MH--the bench man will go searching as to why the two efficiency differences between PSU and battery exist,and will find that reason,while you(the pen pusher) will just keep on wallowing in your own self pity,and continue to peddle rubbish-like you are here and now.


Brad

I am going to shift this conversation back to the JT 101 thread,where it belongs.

Lets go have a recap on that thread MH,at some of the things you have argued against your self about.


Brad

QuoteThe reason that you do not understand it,is because you have no understanding as to how !your! JT circuit works.

Brad, back in the days when we were discussing the Joule Thief I found the following YouTube clip that describes how a Joule Thief works quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GVLnyTdqkg)

You were flustered and confused by that clip.  You couldn't understand it, and you disagreed with it and you obstinately refused to accept what it said.  This went on for a considerable amount of time.  So that means the whole time we were getting into the discussion about the Joule Thief, you didn't even have a clue how one really worked.  For sure you can build one on the bench and get it to run.  However, at the very same time you can still not have a clue about how one really works.  You were in that boat, and for all I know you still might be there.

So you can be a poser all you want, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

MileHigh

Brad:

QuoteI most certainly do not need your verification MH on anything,and more so now that i have seen just how limited your understanding on a simple circuit really is.

I think every single time I have asked you to explain one of your procedures you play the bullshit "I won't bow to your demands" card.  You clam up and freeze up.

Right now I am operating under the assumption that either you don't know how to measure the output impedance of a battery or you think that you do and whatever you do has some hapless tragic mistake in it.  I have seen things like this before.

Or, you can wipe the ridiculous attitude away, and simply explain how you measure the output impedance so we can check if if makes sense.

Why are you freezing up?

MileHigh

@Brad:
The measurement points are indicated on one of the photos of the apparatus. I am measuring input current by the voltage drop across a 0.1 ohm non-inductive resistor on the negative side of the circuit, and input voltage simply across the input terminals. I have done both measurements with oscilloscope and DMMs. We have seen from Poynt99's work that the DMMs do a very good job of averaging pulsed inputs, and I also used the oscilloscope's "average" measurements of each channel's raw readings to confirm the DMM readings. I used the scope's Math function to multiply the raw (not averaged) instantaneous voltage and current inputs, then had the scope compute the "average" of this power measurement,which I then used in the Lux per Watt calculation. The current traces are very different between the two circuits, as you probably know yourself.

Later on I'll do a comparison between the input current, and the output (Collector wrt emitter) voltage, for each circuit configuration. This will show the duty cycle of the output light pulse and its relationship to the input current waveform.

Brad:

Okay, here we go with the deal on your two diagrams.

QuoteBelow are the two circuits,where in both cases the same amount of energy will be delivered to the inductor--lets say 100mJ of energy. I have included the batteries internal resistance that i measured !on the bench! of a normal alkaline battery with 900mV across it,and subtracted 10% of that calculated value for error margin.
Now we have the inductor in both cases storing the same amount of energy.
Can you please tell everyone here,which circuit will deliver the greatest amount of that stored energy to the LED?.

Taking your diagrams at face value, the second circuit will deliver the greatest amount of energy to the LED.

The problem is that if you are going to model the setup, you at least have to provide the right level of detail.  Taking the first diagram at face value the inductor discharges into the LED and the 7-ohm resistor.  However, the 7-ohm resistor is the output impedance of the battery.  So the question of where the energy burning off in the 7 ohm resistor comes from is a bit more complicated than that.

I marked up the drawing and swapped out the discharging inductors for voltage sources in series with resistors.

We know the the LED clamps the voltage.  Let's say that VLED is 3 volts.

Looking at the marked up diagram you can see that most likely the voltage generated by the inductor L1 is going to be relatively low.

This can all be measured on the bench to get some numbers. The energy is supplied to the circuit by the battery voltage source and the inductor as a voltage source, it is split between the two.  You can see that the load has three parts, the battery internal impedance, the L1 resistance, and the LED.  And of course we know that the inductor voltage varies with time.  All that being considered, I am not sensing any special advantage with respect to going with the lower circuit where you eliminate the battery impedance.

I have stated many many times that when you get into low-level details like this you need to do a full power/energy audit for a circuit to know exactly where the power/energy goes.  However, I have never seen you do this once, and I am sure you have read me state this before.

MileHigh

@all

World's first ‪#‎graphene‬ battery product unveiled in Beijing. The portable battery can be fully recharged within 15 minutes, about 20 times faster than a Li-ion battery.


https://www.facebook.com/XinhuaNewsAgency/videos/1322484261112348/ (https://www.facebook.com/XinhuaNewsAgency/videos/1322484261112348/) 


Ya...so this makes my opinion that....  Mile High is Soooo HIGH!   Even *I* don't smoke THAT much.
ya, a minor thing just outside your personal preference and way in the area of gross error... it IS still a good thing.

Quote from: d3x0r on July 14, 2016, 03:50:13 AM
@all

World's first ‪#‎graphene‬ battery product unveiled in Beijing. The portable battery can be fully recharged within 15 minutes, about 20 times faster than a Li-ion battery.


https://www.facebook.com/XinhuaNewsAgency/videos/1322484261112348/ (https://www.facebook.com/XinhuaNewsAgency/videos/1322484261112348/) 


Ya...so this makes my opinion that....  Mile High is Soooo HIGH!   Even *I* don't smoke THAT much.
ya, a minor thing just outside your personal preference and way in the area of gross error... it IS still a good thing.

I like to have xes in airplanes you fool.

It's not a graphene battery product unveiling.  It's just a fancy press release technology announcement but no product.  If you have ever looked at the Revolution Green web site over the past three years there have probably been 50 very similar announcements about new battery technologies.  Unfortunately none have come to market yet.

The simple facts are that Robert Murray Smith made a clip where he claimed that he had a capacitor the size of a credit card that was 2000 Farads but offered no measurements at all to prove his claim.  He has made some technical gaffes in the comments on some of his clips that make you wonder if he even knows how to properly measure the capacitance.  Hence, he runs a small electric motor as a diversion to deflect away from the measurement issue.

Here is what I said to RMS:

<<<
A Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads. The onus is on you to prove that is true - that your credit-card-sized capacitor is 2000 Farads because right now I do not believe it.
>>>

You agreed with me that RMS made a ridiculous and unacceptable mistake where he measured the current flow over time but ignored the voltage measurement.

You said this:

Quoteso ya pretty high estimate...

How about you have the courage to state that RMS made an unacceptable measurement error when he measured the current but did not measure the voltage?

I also challenge you to retract your statement alleging that I am a troll.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2016, 06:30:41 PM
I like to have xes in airplanes you fool.

It's not a graphene battery product unveiling.  It's just a fancy press release technology announcement but no product.  If you have ever looked at the Revolution Green web site over the past three years there have probably been 50 very similar announcements about new battery technologies.  Unfortunately none have come to market yet.

The simple facts are that Robert Murray Smith made a clip where he claimed that he had a capacitor the size of a credit card that was 2000 Farads but offered no measurements at all to prove his claim.  He has made some technical gaffes in the comments on some of his clips that make you wonder if he even knows how to properly measure the capacitance.  Hence, he runs a small electric motor as a diversion to deflect away from the measurement issue.

Here is what I said to RMS:

<<<
A Maxwell K2Series BCAP 2000 Farad ultracapacitor is in a can that is 10 cm long x 6 cm in diameter.  In one of your clips you claim that you made a home-brew 2000 Farad capacitor that is roughly the size of a credit card.  Let us be conservative and say that you are claiming 10X the energy density by volume with your credit card sized capacitor that you claim is 2000 Farads. The onus is on you to prove that is true - that your credit-card-sized capacitor is 2000 Farads because right now I do not believe it.
>>>

You agreed with me that RMS made a ridiculous and unacceptable mistake where he measured the current flow over time but ignored the voltage measurement.

You said this:

How about you have the courage to state that RMS made an unacceptable measurement error when he measured the current but did not measure the voltage?

I also challenge you to retract your statement alleging that I am a troll.

MH

Forget about RMS-there are bigger fish to fry.

I would like you to have a look at Mark Dansies latest thread,and let us know what you think.

Time to leave all the !will never work!stuff behind,and look at something that dose have potential.

What do you know about this ion transfer stuff?


Brad

TINMAN you just do not need JUST salt water but valuable SWEAT WATER..
TO EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL REACTION REMEMBER..
EXAMPLE THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HEMISPHERES   WINDS ARE
NOW CROSSING OVER THE EQUATOR SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPEN UNTIL THIS YEAR
WHY MY REASON THEY ARE TAKING TOO MUCH ENERGY FROM THE NORTHERLY WIND FOR
WIND POWER GENERATION.. BEES AND INSECTS OF ALL TYPES ARE VANISHING ..
WHY BECAUSE OF MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION FROM MOBILE PHONES,RADAR AND MILITARY,
SAME FREQUENCY AS MICROWAVE
OVENS 4.7 GIGA HERTZ..

   With solar we're getting to the point where utility companies are introducing
  severe capping on grid-tie installations.
    An obvious answer seems to be a storage system. I can't ever see big mileage
  in capacitor derived systems due to the unfavourable discharge characteristics.
  A storage battery can supply a fairly flat output curve which is ideal and the big
  problem has been degradation. I came across Sonnen battery the other day and
  was amazed to see a 10,000 cycle life quoted. Can this really be true???
            John.

Quote from: tinman on July 15, 2016, 12:28:57 AM
MH

Forget about RMS-there are bigger fish to fry.

I would like you to have a look at Mark Dansies latest thread,and let us know what you think.

Time to leave all the !will never work!stuff behind,and look at something that dose have potential.

What do you know about this ion transfer stuff?


Brad

Osmosis normally lets water molecules through a membrane and not the ions.  Simon on Revolution Green said that normally the water molecules are smaller than the ions.  So it sounds like the membrane is doing the opposite.  I am not really qualified to talk about this stuff so I will have to have a wait-and-see attitude.  So it's similar to waiting and seeing for yet another battery "breakthrough."

You will know it is real when you can go on Amazon and order a new replacement battery for your cell phone that is 10X the performance of current batteries.  Or perhaps if some new battery technology must work at a different voltage, then you can imagine new cell phones being designed for the new batteries.

The thing to keep in mind when talking about batteries is that the market is already there for the picking.  So perhaps one day a battery breakthrough will be real.

MileHigh

Quote from: minnie on July 15, 2016, 08:27:45 AM


   With solar we're getting to the point where utility companies are introducing
  severe capping on grid-tie installations.
    An obvious answer seems to be a storage system. I can't ever see big mileage
  in capacitor derived systems due to the unfavourable discharge characteristics.
  A storage battery can supply a fairly flat output curve which is ideal and the big
  problem has been degradation. I came across Sonnen battery the other day and
  was amazed to see a 10,000 cycle life quoted. Can this really be true???
            John.

As for the difference in using a cap or battery for grid support, I dont find issue with the caps voltage variance in comparison, as there will need to be inverters to send power down the line from these support substations. There are many even small dc-dc converters out there that work with a wide range of input, so the caps could work well.  The biggest battle between caps and batteries would be energy stored per cubic inch.

There are some stories that come out periodically about a new batteries, but then they die out and never heard about again.

Had read some time back that a new car batt was in the works where instead of both + and - plates being made of lead, that using carbon for one of the plates produced a better battery at nearly half the weight.  Havnt heard about it since. That would be big for lead acid batteries in the battery market.  Like my electric bike, I run what looks just like a typical 12v 12ah battery with heavy push on terminals, but it is 14ah. Get them at Batteries Plus, $55 ea but I use 4 for 48v, and you save about $70 in the quantity of 4. So about $150. About 11lb ea on the bike rack. If they were nearly half the weight it would be closing in on a similar power lith pack that costs $600 to $800.
Ive met many people that got bikes with lith packs and when it goes bad they dont want to put in  another $700, sometimes within a year.  Me, $150 for 1 to 2 yrs of every day ridding, Ill live with the extra weight for now.

Lidmotor made what seems to be a battery using aluminum foil for both plates with a salt water soaked paper towel between. No voltage when measured, but then you charge it and it acts as a battery. Im guessing the charge makes changes to the plate surfaces. Probably car battery lead plates are precoated electrically, as some batteries come without the acid in the battery, some motorcycle batts, and when you put that acid in, it shows charge.  If the plates were just plain lead there would be no initial charge when you put the acid in.

Just rambling.

Mags