You have to see this thread, it looks like Avalon has done it! He demonstrates a Lenz-less transformer at 60 HZ that is clearly an OU device of the highest order! His demonstration is impressive and you can tell in the video that he is very excited while performing the demo. He also has a lot of experience with this field of research which is why he was able to put it together so quickly!
http://overunity.com/16340/the-secret-to-the-self-oscillating-transformer/msg471078/#msg471078 (http://overunity.com/16340/the-secret-to-the-self-oscillating-transformer/msg471078/#msg471078)
Here is his new video with a new watt meter demonstration. We can hear the capacitor assisted transformer working quite nicely in this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVmhahIg_4E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVmhahIg_4E)
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 16, 2016, 01:09:01 PM
You have to see this thread, it looks like Avalon has done it! He demonstrates a Lenz-less transformer at 60 HZ that is clearly an OU device of the highest order! His demonstration is impressive and you can tell in the video that he is very excited while performing the demo. He also has a lot of experience with this field of research which is why he was able to put it together so quickly!
http://overunity.com/16340/the-secret-to-the-self-oscillating-transformer/msg471078/#msg471078 (http://overunity.com/16340/the-secret-to-the-self-oscillating-transformer/msg471078/#msg471078)
Funny thing about those "Kill-A-Watt" type meters, returning the load thru the third prong ground will cause it to register zero watts.
Snip the extension cord inside the tub, connect the neutral from the load to the green wire/third prong ground and voila, it (only) looks like OU.
Just sayin'...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 16, 2016, 02:26:51 PM
Funny thing about those "Kill-A-Watt" type meters, returning the load thru the third prong ground will cause it to register zero watts.
Snip the extension cord inside the tub, connect the neutral from the load to the green wire/third prong ground and voila, instant OU.
Just sayin'...
PW
I think Avalon's next move... he has one planned as he titled the video part 1... is to eliminate the extension cord by building a 60 cycle oscillator to excite the transformer and get it going. Does not make any sense that Avalon, being a senior OU member, with a demonstrated background in ferro resonance, would perpetuate a hoax. That type of scenario does not add up.
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 16, 2016, 02:37:13 PM
I think Avalon's next move... he has one planned as he titled the video part 1... is to eliminate the extension cord by building a 60 cycle oscillator to excite the transformer and get it going. Does not make any sense that Avalon, being a senior OU member, with a demonstrated background in ferro resonance, would perpetuate a hoax. That type of scenario does not add up.
So, considering how easily the tub is lifted with one hand from the top edge indicating there is little weight inside, and the fact that the watt meter reads exactly zero watts, not a few watts, but exactly zero, it is easier for you to believe that there is a magic transformer inside and not the use of the very simple method I described, which will produce identical results?
Oh well...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 16, 2016, 04:29:10 PM
So, considering how easily the tub is lifted with one hand from the top edge indicating there is little weight inside, and the fact that the watt meter reads exactly zero watts, not a few watts, but exactly zero, it is easier for you to believe that there is a magic transformer inside and not the use of the very simple method I described, which will produce identical results?
Oh well...
PW
It looked like there was weight in the container... I also noticed he seemed to be in a state of excitement as he was performing the demo. I know there is a lot of fakery going on out there.... but I do not believe this to be the case here Pico... and as he does not plan on opening the box or revealing any more about the device, we will not know any time soon.
Quote from: picowatt on January 16, 2016, 04:29:10 PM
So, considering how easily the tub is lifted with one hand from the top edge indicating there is little weight inside, and the fact that the watt meter reads exactly zero watts, not a few watts, but exactly zero, it is easier for you to believe that there is a magic transformer inside and not the use of the very simple method I described, which will produce identical results?
Oh well...
PW
Good thinking. I haven't thought of that when making the first video.
It could be a viable scenario except that the device drops the voltage when overloaded. So, if there is a simple bypass inside than the input voltage will simply be equal to the output voltage (minus some negligible losses for additional wiring). Instead, the output voltage drops when the device is overloaded.
I'll quickly make another video later on today showing the input and output voltages.
~A
Quote from: avalon on January 16, 2016, 04:56:03 PM
Good thinking. I haven't thought of that when making the first video.
It could be a viable scenario except that the device (TRANSFORMER) drops the voltage when overloaded. So, if there is a simple bypass inside than the input voltage will simply be equal to the output voltage (minus some negligible losses for additional wiring). Instead, the output voltage drops when the device (TRANSFORMER) is overloaded.
I'll quickly make another video later on today showing the input and output voltages.
~A
Right Avalon?
Without oscilloscope traces of simultaneous voltage and current (V across a small value resistor) going into the device all we can deduce is that the device defeats the simple kw meter. A handy device none the less if it works on the house meter, which it most likely will not.
Quote from: picowatt on January 16, 2016, 04:29:10 PM
So, considering how easily the tub is lifted with one hand from the top edge indicating there is little weight inside, and the fact that the watt meter reads exactly zero watts, not a few watts, but exactly zero, it is easier for you to believe that there is a magic transformer inside and not the use of the very simple method I described, which will produce identical results?
Oh well...
PW
I wasn't aware of that little trick. Sounds like a clamp-on ammeter would come in handy.
We have been here before and I am not feeling it at all.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 16, 2016, 07:39:01 PM
I wasn't aware of that little trick. Sounds like a clamp-on ammeter would come in handy.
We have been here before and I am not feeling it at all.
MH,
I confirmed what I originally posted using a P4400 Kill-A-Watt meter.
If the neutral side of the load is returned thru the third prong ground, my meter reads zero watts.
Perhaps a neutral to ground connection within the tub was unintentional or unnoticed, but doing as I posted does replicate what is seen in the video.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 16, 2016, 07:54:08 PM
MH,
I confirmed what I originally posted using a P4400 Kill-A-Watt meter.
If the neutral side of the load is returned thru the third prong ground, my meter reads zero watts.
Perhaps a neutral to ground connection within the tub was unintentional or unnoticed, but doing as I posted does replicate what is seen in the video.
PW
Avalon has the new video of his transformer up now Pico.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVmhahIg_4E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVmhahIg_4E)
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 16, 2016, 09:37:09 PM
Avalon has the new video of his transformer up now Pico.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVmhahIg_4E
Sorry, but I remain skeptical. Notice how the voltage measured at the power strip drops similarly when loaded with or without the "tub" connected between the loads. This is consistent with current being drawn from the hot side of the AC line in both instances, with the neutral current returned via the third prong ground when the tub is in circuit. I do however see that the tub has been swapped out for something a bit different.
Avalon, how about making a similar video using only a two conductor cord between the Kill-A-Watt and the tub? Possibly consider using a three prong to two prong adapter plugged into the Kill-A-Watt.
PW
QuoteNotice how the voltage measured at the power strip drops similarly when loaded with or without the "tub" connected between the loads.
Exactly, our little Tupperware trickster has been busted and assuming that he was really trying, it turns out he is not as smart as he thought he was.
The magic resonance transformer will have to wait for another day.
Quote from: picowatt on January 16, 2016, 10:06:11 PM
Sorry, but I remain skeptical.
PW
I remain skeptical too. I have already mentioned that I would not release anything until I am 100% sure of where the energy is coming from. So far, I cannot answer that question.
BTW, similar to my dumb Kill-A-Watt device, my smart PG&E house meter does not register anything either when I connect the load through the device.
Until I can answer the question above with a reasonable degree of certainty I will simply assume that I've created a cheating device. In that case no details will ever be released.
~A
Put the multi meter in series in AC amp mode. If there are higher freq than just 60hz, the meter should still read as long as it is not real high freq, where the watt meter may be restricted at even a couple hundred hz. Dunno.
Mags
Most multi meters are good for 10A. Refer to previous post.
Mags
Quote from: avalon on January 16, 2016, 10:58:39 PM
Until I can answer the question above with a reasonable degree of certainty I will simply assume that I've created a cheating device. In that case no details will ever be released.
~A
QuoteI remain skeptical too. I have already mentioned that I would not release anything until I am 100% sure of where the energy is coming from. So far, I cannot answer that question.
It's coming from the grid ::)
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 12:47:04 AM
It's coming from the grid ::)
That's what I thought. However, the house meter does not register the load.
Regardless, I think that you are right. I do not know how to explain it [yet], but my years of experience tell me that it has to be from the grid.
~A
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 12:47:04 AM
It's coming from the grid ::)
So what is causing the watt meter to not read? Is the setup in the box causing a freq change that the meter doesnt work well with?
Mags
Or there is a battery in the box ;)
Only one way to know for sure, make it self loop.
Hello all, in my modest opinion will be interesting look the effects of this device when an alternator is feeding the power and measure the mechanical power needed to drive the same.
Best regards
Quote from: avalon on January 16, 2016, 10:58:39 PM
I remain skeptical too. I have already mentioned that I would not release anything until I am 100% sure of where the energy is coming from. So far, I cannot answer that question.
BTW, similar to my dumb Kill-A-Watt device, my smart PG&E house meter does not register anything either when I connect the load through the device.
Until I can answer the question above with a reasonable degree of certainty I will simply assume that I've created a cheating device. In that case no details will ever be released.
~A
Hi A Valon,
I also think the energy source cannot be anything other than your utility mains (tinman already mentioned this too).
With your circuit in the box you may have created a 90 degree phase difference between the AC current and voltage what the meters you use (Kill A Watt or the utility house meter) cannot register.
You can check this if you had a 2 channel oscilloscope and use a series low Ohm value current sense resistor at the input of you box to see simultaneously the voltage drop across the resistor (i.e. a measure of the input current) and the input voltage to your box, i.e. the phase relation between I and V. Be careful when using a scope on the mains due to grounding issues.
Thanks, Gyula
Hi A VALON I have a great idea just connect the output to a grid tied inverter and send the power from the inverter back online check the power meter..
All your problem is solved..
Quote from: gyulasun on January 17, 2016, 06:51:39 AM
Hi A Valon,
I also think the energy source cannot be anything other than your utility mains (tinman already mentioned this too).
With your circuit in the box you may have created a 90 degree phase difference between the AC current and voltage what the meters you use (Kill A Watt or the utility house meter) cannot register.
You can check this if you had a 2 channel oscilloscope and use a series low Ohm value current sense resistor at the input of you box to see simultaneously the voltage drop across the resistor (i.e. a measure of the input current) and the input voltage to your box, i.e. the phase relation between I and V. Be careful when using a scope on the mains due to grounding issues.
Thanks, Gyula
This is a good example of why this community needs a standard COP meter.
Anyway Gyula, if he was indeed creating a 90º phase shift and all connections were correct, then the killawatt meter would be reading correctly, as there would be no input power. Agreed? But it could very well be what PW explained. Hopefully avalon will confirm the connections inside his box.
Quote from: avalon on January 16, 2016, 10:58:39 PM
I remain skeptical too. I have already mentioned that I would not release anything until I am 100% sure of where the energy is coming from. So far, I cannot answer that question.
BTW, similar to my dumb Kill-A-Watt device, my smart PG&E house meter does not register anything either when I connect the load through the device.
Until I can answer the question above with a reasonable degree of certainty I will simply assume that I've created a cheating device. In that case no details will ever be released.
~A
The energy is coming from the same place it does in conventional generators. Out of a higher dimensional field that is unseen to the 3 dimensional senses. This is why Tesla could not explain where it comes from either. Nor will you.
A generator's output, the induced magnet current and voltage, comes from the supplied magnetic field, be it permanent or electromagnetic. It does not come from the torque that is applied to the shaft. The force that is supplied to turn the dhaft under load is used to fight the resistance of the between the supplied field and the induced field. Back EMF. The supplied field never depletes itself, it is place where the energy comes from. Figure out the true source or origin of a magnetic field, and you will then know where the energy is coming from.
Who cares where it comes from, take a page out of Tesla's book, be happy it's there. Your watt meter and your smart meter are proving that you have set up resonance in your capacitor assisted transformer and are obtaining a lenz free output.
Quote from: avalon on January 17, 2016, 01:09:09 AM
the house meter does not register the load.
~A
So, this is FREE energy :D
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 17, 2016, 08:49:32 AM
The energy is coming from the same place it does in conventional generators. Out of a higher dimensional field that is unseen to the 3 dimensional senses. This is why Tesla could not explain where it comes from either. Nor will you.
A generator's output, the induced magnet current and voltage, comes from the supplied magnetic field, be it permanent or electromagnetic. It does not come from the torque that is applied to the shaft. The force that is supplied to turn the dhaft under load is used to fight the resistance of the between the supplied field and the induced field. Back EMF. The supplied field never depletes itself, it is place where the energy comes from. Figure out the true source or origin of a magnetic field, and you will then know where the energy is coming from.
Who cares where it comes from, take a page out of Tesla's book, be happy it's there. Your watt meter and your smart meter are proving that you have set up resonance in your capacitor assisted transformer and are obtaining a lenz free output.
Energy can be transformed from one form to another. I will assume that you have seen that in various threads and agreed with it. So you can't just cherry pick when you want to accept that or not accept that. Mechanical power applied to a generator results in electrical power out. That's the source of the electrical power, not a "higher dimensional field that is unseen to the 3 dimensional senses." It's a nice sounding fantasy but it's not true.
Likewise resonance is not a source of free energy. Resonance is just a method of storing energy that comes from somewhere else. The source of a magnetic field is an electron in motion. That's what's in the deck of cards that Nature has dealt to us, so you may as well run with it and try to use that to your advantage.
It is not a matter of cherry picking anything, I have put forth a legitmate observation of the forces at play in a generator. The torque applied to shaft is consumed in the struggle between the supplied field and the induced field. The source of the current and voltage coming out of the generator is the supplied field. It is not coming from the force that is required to turn the shaft. Yes the input is in exact proportion to the output when the generator is loaded, but there are two entirely different energy interactions in play. The torque applied to the shaft, is not itself transformed into output, that force is used up in the process, the true transformation of energy is between the supplied field and the induced field. The input torque itself is not transformed into the output in a literal sense, it is used up in the process.
The supplied field is providing the output, and it never runs out, it is self replenishing. That is truly where the energy is coming from.
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 17, 2016, 10:21:53 AM
I disagree with you...
Do you have any background in electronics? Or have you just been doing a lot of reading?
What I suggest that you do is go on a bench and make a test setup for a transformer. Measure the input and output with different source and load impedances. Measure the inductance of the transformer from the primary side and from the secondary side. Determine when the core gets saturated from the primary side and from the secondary side. Measure the phase and frequency response of the transformer for different load impedances. Measure the amount of energy that can be stored in the core from the primary side and from the secondary side. Put a resistive load, then an inductive load, and then a capacitive load on the secondary, and see how that load is reflected back to the primary. Examine the way the transformer operates in pulse circuits, and also in AC circuits.
If you do those bench tests then you will realize what a transformer really is. In many ways a transformer is just an electrical equivalent to a set of meshed gears. Does that statement make any sense to you? When you look at a simple transmission consisting of a gear with 100 teeth meshed with a smaller gear of 50 teeth, do you get any sense that you can get any free mechanical energy from a set of meshed gears?
It's all fine and dandy to fantasize about things. However, you are fantasizing about things that are tangible and real. I did all the tests I mentioned above a long time ago. I think that's something that you need to do to get a tangible feeling and understanding of what an electrical transformer really is before you proclaim that one can be used as a magical source of free energy.
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 17, 2016, 10:21:53 AM
It is not a matter of cherry picking anything, I have put forth a legitmate observation of the forces at play in a generator. The torque applied to shaft is consumed in the struggle between the supplied field and the induced field. The source of the current and voltage coming out of the generator is the supplied field. It is not coming from the force that is required to turn the shaft. Yes the input is in exact proportion to the output when the generator is loaded, but there are two entirely different energy interactions in play. The torque applied to the shaft, is not itself transformed into output, that force is used up in the process, the true transformation of energy is between the supplied field and the induced field. The input torque itself is wasted in the process.
The torque is the force required to push against opposing magnetic fields inside the generator. Power dissipated in the load requires voltage and current. That current going into the load results in a magnetic field being produced inside the generator. Another magnetic field pushes against that load-derived magnetic field. The source for that pushing is the external torque applied to the generator shaft from an external mechanical power source.
When you strip down a generator to its basic elements, you have brute external force pushing a magnet against an electromagnet. That electromagnet pumps electrical power into a load.
Brute mechanical force times displacement is transformed inside the generator and what comes out the other side is brute voltage and current that goes into a load.
MH, lets agree to disagree and leave it at that, the discussion is going nowhere... it's 'a waste of energy' for both of us... pun intended of course.
Quote from: pulp on January 17, 2016, 02:23:02 AM
Or there is a battery in the box ;)
Avalon is not a con artist, he is an experienced researcher with a well demonstrated background in resonance research. I assure you there is no fraudulent use of a battery in the box.
One quick way to confirm. If you are truly drawing effectively zero current from the grid, you could just find or wind a small 1-1 isolation transformer.
If you're still sucking 300w on the far end of a 10w isolation transformer, congrats ;) .
Quote from: avalon on January 16, 2016, 10:58:39 PM
I remain skeptical too. I have already mentioned that I would not release anything until I am 100% sure of where the energy is coming from. So far, I cannot answer that question.
BTW, similar to my dumb Kill-A-Watt device, my smart PG&E house meter does not register anything either when I connect the load through the device.
Until I can answer the question above with a reasonable degree of certainty I will simply assume that I've created a cheating device. In that case no details will ever be released.
~A
OK, I believe now you are not faking anything .... unlike some others here who will always believe it's fake. But why set yourself up as the one to decide who can and can't have this knowledge? I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves and take responsibility for their actions if they wanted to cheat. I doubt anyone here would take that risk anyway but many would replicate and verify. I think what happens as soon as someone finds something like this is that SURGE of power in you brain you get from knowing you have something no one else has and as they say power corrupts. We don't need morality police here. You can buy devices out of China that cheat the meters if that is your inclination.
Assuming this is not just a meter fooling situation what happens to this info if you have not shared it with anyone and you are suddenly in an accident or some thing bad happens as I know happens a lot more often in Kalifornia (you mentioned P,G&E so I assume you are there and having spent many years in Kali I know the craziness there). Not to mention the possibility of getting visits from those who have a great deal to lose if any free energy gets discovered. It's never really a good choice to withhold such info.
Couple more thoughts .... IIRC the lights you are using are LED rather than Halogen - is that correct? Have you tried any other type of loads? Do they also work?
Do you have a o'scope and have you looked at waveforms coming out of your box?
What to they tell you or do you need help interpreting them?
How are you going to 'prove' where the energy is coming from - especially if it is an unknown new source of energy?
I just ran into an interview with Jack Durban re the Steven Marks device that I never knew existed. I excerpted the following from the interview and now post it here for the benefit of those who have not heard it. Jack worked with Steven Marks early on in the project and visited with him approximately ten times at the mansion Steven was working out of. At this period in time Steven was not yet successful in powering inductive loads such as motors and is the time when Durban parted company with him. But did power inductive loads shortly after.
One of the first things Jack makes clear is that the torroidal design had absolutely nothing to do with the function of the device. He also says it was not Steven's design that it reminded him of an early Tesla patent. Durban was a Tesla fan.
"I was part of the family and he was even careful with me, because I think, that he could tell that if I had just had enough time with the unit and could take it apart or help him build one, that I would discover just how simple the technology really was.
Most everything in the device was purchased at Radio Shack. A Reed switch, a magnet and a couple of other components. There was a large polypropolene Cap and a choke that were sitting on top of the large 15 inch diameter unit. It is not a very complicated device, it is just very complicated to get working properly. The winding of the unit was very laborious... output levels could be changed based on ratios and things like that... a very elemental, fundamental device, not very sophisticated... just unstable and difficult to tame... he was not a very intelligent guy... I see the deification all over the internet, but this is not the kinda guy that invented this device, he came across it somehow and tried to make it work as a tinkerer... Steven was very paranoid as this device was not that difficult to figure out.... he did not want anyone looking over his shoulder or he would become instantly obsolete... this guy was not a technical person, just a tinkerer... that also goes to the simplicity of this device... Question... how did he cloak it so that people couldn't tell what he was doing? I am glad you asked... one of the tricks that he employed that I thought was rather amusing, was using a magnet to drop into a little receptacle that would cause the device to come to life, and all that was was a reed switch that was inside the receptacle.... he went to a lot of lengths to wrap the coils with electrical tape... the unit I was most familiar with was the large unit... it was not that complicated... you would think that there was mosfets and all kind of triggering relays, but there is none, there is no solid state technology.... I do not think that Steven knew which end of a diode to use where...
The full interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPuhI03ZMR8
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPuhI03ZMR8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPuhI03ZMR8
Avalon, Just one more thing I'll say. If you have reservations about releasing the info here because you think it will go viral into the hands of people who would use it to cheat why not give it to a few of the impeccable people we all know here? Like gyulasun comes to mind first as well as a number of others who I have no doubt would never use this for cheating.
One last thing for now. This is what I would do to know for sure if you are really tapping some 'unknown' energy source or whether you are just fooling the meter. Since your one light shows it is drawing about 2 amps get a small 12 volt battery that is about 5 to 7 Amp hour. Get an inverter that can handle the 240 watts easily. A 750 watt inverter from Walmart is dirt cheap nowadays if you don't have one. Use the battery and inverter to provide power to your box. On the output use a battery charger that can provide at least 2 amps and hook it up to the battery. Because of inefficiencies in the inverter and charger the battery will eventually run down if it is just a meter fooling device but if you really have something it should keep the battery charged and then some. You could even add a little load. If that does not work (possibly because the inverter output is not the same smooth sine wave as house current) I would suggest getting a computer UPS (uninterruptable power supply) and using it on the input of your device. Start with the UPS hooked up to the grid, then unplug it and it will switch to it's internal battery so it will still be putting power into your device and quickly plug the UPS input into the output of your device. If it is not just meter fooling it should keep running for a very long time. At that point you could also add some load.
Quote from: seychelles on January 17, 2016, 08:15:53 AM
Hi A VALON I have a great idea just connect the output to a grid tied inverter and send the power from the inverter back online check the power meter..
All your problem is solved..
Great minds think alike! That's exactly what I am doing right now.
Since the PG&E meter hasn't registered any load when using the device, I am curious to see if it's going to register any gains (through a 500W grid-tie inverter).
~A
Quote from: Reiyuki on January 17, 2016, 12:34:18 PM
One quick way to confirm. If you are truly drawing effectively zero current from the grid, you could just find or wind a small 1-1 isolation transformer.
If you're still sucking 300w on the far end of a 10w isolation transformer, congrats ;) .
Another idea we commonly share. This one is included in another experiment in the pipeline. I'll try to make a video as well.
~A
Quote from: poynt99 on January 17, 2016, 08:47:22 AM
This is a good example of why this community needs a standard COP meter.
Anyway Gyula, if he was indeed creating a 90º phase shift and all connections were correct, then the killawatt meter would be reading correctly, as there would be no input power. Agreed? But it could very well be what PW explained. Hopefully avalon will confirm the connections inside his box.
Hi Darren,
I agree on that, nevertheless question remains how can you explain his smart PG&E house meter does not register anything either (as he wrote it in his Reply #13) while he consumes power from the mains via his box?
@ avalon
By the way, your killawatt meter features a VA and a Power Factor measuring possibility too under the W and the Hz button (double function buttons, you need to push them twice to get VA or PF, respectively) and it would be good info if you showed what those buttons may have displayed during the tests...
Yes the grid tie inverter is also a good idea.
Gyula
Quote from: e2matrix on January 17, 2016, 12:35:04 PM
O But why set yourself up as the one to decide who can and can't have this knowledge?
I don't. I am following the way you suggested in your post exactly.
If the device turn out to be more than just a cheating box, I will open it up and show.
However, I am not going to promote energy theft for many reasons, if the device will turn up as an elaborate kit to fool the utility.
California or not, basic rules still apply.
~A
Quote from: gyulasun on January 17, 2016, 02:08:06 PM
Hi Darren,
I agree on that, nevertheless question remains how can you explain his smart PG&E house meter does not register anything either (as he wrote it in his Reply #13) while he consumes power from the mains via his box?
A very good question.
I'm interested in what will follow with the suggested tests. :)
Confirmation of the GND/Neutral connection inside the box would be good as well.
Avalon:
Another simple test would be to just continue to use the heck out of your device and...if the Thugs from PG&E show up and arrest you, then you know it was just a cheating device, ha ha.
I do respect that you do not want to release possible plans for a device to steal from the power company, (IF this is what it turns out to be) this is admirable.
Bill
Quote from: avalon on January 16, 2016, 10:58:39 PM
I remain skeptical too. I have already mentioned that I would not release anything until I am 100% sure of where the energy is coming from. So far, I cannot answer that question.
BTW, similar to my dumb Kill-A-Watt device, my smart PG&E house meter does not register anything either when I connect the load through the device.
Until I can answer the question above with a reasonable degree of certainty I will simply assume that I've created a cheating device. In that case no details will ever be released.
~A
Avalon,
Are you certain the load does not register on your smart meter? Have you checked to see if you can see the load(s) being measured on the smart meter when they are plugged directly into the power strip (i.e., without the "tub")?
Some smart meters have a very slow update rate that do not display real time load changes. Some do have closer to real time readouts or smart phone updates, but many only do so at 5-15min intervals/averages.
Try attaching a three prong to two prong AC plug adapter to the male end of the cord feeding the "tub" and then plug that into your Kill-A-Watt as in previous tests. If the neutral return from the load is by way of the third prong ground, your loads should not light (be cautious, as depending upon how your setup is wired, your lamp housings might then have line voltage on them).
My condolences with regard to being a PG&E customer...
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on January 17, 2016, 09:40:38 AM
Energy can be transformed from one form to another. I will assume that you have seen that in various threads and agreed with it. So you can't just cherry pick when you want to accept that or not accept that. Mechanical power applied to a generator results in electrical power out. That's the source of the electrical power, not a "higher dimensional field that is unseen to the 3 dimensional senses." It's a nice sounding fantasy but it's not true.
Likewise resonance is not a source of free energy. Resonance is just a method of storing energy that comes from somewhere else. The source of a magnetic field is an electron in motion. That's what's in the deck of cards that Nature has dealt to us, so you may as well run with it and try to use that to your advantage.
QuoteThe source of a magnetic field is an electron in motion.
And in permanent magnets ?.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 17, 2016, 10:52:10 AM
The torque is the force required to push against opposing magnetic fields inside the generator. Power dissipated in the load requires voltage and current. That current going into the load results in a magnetic field being produced inside the generator. Another magnetic field pushes against that load-derived magnetic field. The source for that pushing is the external torque applied to the generator shaft from an external mechanical power source.
When you strip down a generator to its basic elements, you have brute external force pushing a magnet against an electromagnet. That electromagnet pumps electrical power into a load.
Brute mechanical force times displacement is transformed inside the generator and what comes out the other side is brute voltage and current that goes into a load.
Well that's half of the AC sine MH,and half of the cycle.
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 05:44:50 PM
And in permanent magnets ?.
Yes, and in permanent magnets.
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 05:46:59 PM
Well that's half of the AC sine MH,and half of the cycle.
Hence commutation, either mechanical or electrical.
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 05:44:50 PM
And in permanent magnets ?.
And in permanent magnets the source of the magnetic field is electrons in motion.
That's a "shocker" question for you to pose at this point in time and one can assume that it's raising some eyebrows.
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 05:46:59 PM
Well that's half of the AC sine MH,and half of the cycle.
No, it's a generic statement and what half of the AC sine wave you are on has nothing to do with it.
Quote from: avalon on January 17, 2016, 01:09:09 AM
That's what I thought. However, the house meter does not register the load.
Regardless, I think that you are right. I do not know how to explain it [yet], but my years of experience tell me that it has to be from the grid.
~A
As i am unfamiliar with your house meter,it is hard to make any comment on this.
I can tell you that when i used my old arc welder out on the farm-where the house meter was the old wheel type,the meter use to spin backwards ???. There is also a video on youtube from some one else that shows this happening. Im really not sure as to how or why this happened,but it did. This would seem to indicate that more power was flowing back into the grid than was being consumed by the arc welder(some call them stick welders). However- this new digital smart meter that is on the house i am in at the moment !dose! read the power being consumed by the arc welder,and dose not start !reversing! like the old wheel meter did.
Perhaps the old meter also measured the reactive power being sent back to the grid?,and in that case,it would !seem! that there was more power flowing back into the grid than was being consumed. That being the case,you have to also wonder as to where the energy was coming from to melt the steel of the welding rod and two pieces of metal being welded together?.
There is one other interesting effect when using an arc welder,and i will make a video of that as soon as i can,and post it here-->and i have not seen anyone else show this effect.
Brad
You have one, what a pile of 27-28 pp3 batteries in a circle? ;) ;)
You could do it with standing waves the returning wave is amplified with no ground wire (no nasty stuff ) !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naYsTN-D7qA
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 17, 2016, 05:48:55 PM
Yes, and in permanent magnets.
Brads question was is it electrons in motion that produces the magnetic field of a magnet.
Could you elaborate on that? ;)
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on January 17, 2016, 05:56:57 PM
And in permanent magnets the source of the magnetic field is electrons in motion.
That's a "shocker" question for you to pose at this point in time and one can assume that it's raising some eyebrows.
No MH,not a shocker question.
It was asked because i needed a reference point for this statement by you. In time you will see why.
Brad.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 17, 2016, 05:48:55 PM
Yes, and in permanent magnets.
Hence commutation, either mechanical or electrical.
I have seen no AC generator(alternator) with commutation.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 17, 2016, 06:00:59 PM
No, it's a generic statement and what half of the AC sine wave you are on has nothing to do with it.
MH
The two magnetic fields only !push! against each other for half of the cycle.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 17, 2016, 06:11:17 PM
Brads question was is it electrons in motion that produces the magnetic field of a magnet.
Could you elaborate on that? ;)
Mags
Yes,an important question Mag's,but i doubt it will be answered correctly-or at all in any depth. ::)
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 06:19:48 PM
Yes,an important question Mag's,but i doubt it will be answered correctly-or at all in any depth. ::)
Well I caught that and going with it. To me it seems that electrons are the source of magnetic field. If atoms are realigned when making a magnet then the electrons would be in alignment also. When a current flows in a wire, Im of the belief that the electrons that are in motion and broken away from their atoms in the wire are also of a particular orientation. Orientation as in the electron possibly has a + side and a - side electrically. If they do, then that may explain that when the electrons flow in a conductor one way the mag field is of one polarity around the wire, and when the electrons flow through the conductor in the other direction the polarity of the magnetic field is reversed. It just seems logical that the electrons are electrically polarized and not just negative items themselves.
Like if we apply a small current in a wire, only some of the electrons in the wire are breaking and moving in a particular direction and the field around the wire is only comprised of the fields of those fewer electrons in motion. But when we apply a very high current through the wire, there could be a huge number of electrons in motion and electrical alignment where all of their fields around the wire are much denser and stronger.
So in a magnet sitting on a table, is it just simply that the electrons are aligned as such to produce a polarized field within the magnet, or is it due to electron motion(as you had questioned of Mh and TK confirming)?
Mags
This clip is a good starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8
Quote from: MileHigh on January 17, 2016, 06:55:03 PM
This clip is a good starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8)
But it still doesnt explain 'why' the polarity of the field changes with electron direction of motion. In a perm magnet the electrons are circling the atoms and that is the only electron motion happening in the magnet, say it is in the middle of nowhere without outer influence of other fields electrical or magnetic.
So is there a video that shows that the movement of electrons in a perm magnet are what produces the magnets polarized total field? TK seems to say yes. That is what I would be interested in seeing. ;D
Mags
Mystery solved (sort of...)
OK, here is the result of my playing with the device and the house meter.
My house is connected to the utility through a digital smart meter. My meter looks like the picture attached to this post except that it is made by Landis & Gyr.
I do not know how old the meter is (it looks relatively new) but should've worked just fine, all considering. However, it has the same design fault as my dumb Kill-A-Watt device. Under certain conditions it does not work properly.
Yes, there is still power consumption but the meter doesn't want to know about it.
My next (and rather obvious move) was to go to a friend's house where the meter is still an old winding type. No pleasant surprises there. It shows some power consumption the moment my device is plugged in.
We also tried a different digital meter (GE, bi-directional) which worked just fine and showed true consumption.
After some digging I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQdeLQqaStA which shows the tear down of a smart meter. After watching the video and some additional experimenting I think I know the answer.
So, is my device consuming power? Sadly, yes. It does.
The smart meter doesn't register the consumption because it senses the current on the hot sides only. My device, however, once tuned to the resonance frequency of the transformer, draws the power on the ground side hence bypassing the sensor.
That bypassing is possible due to yet another side effect which I am not going to discuss in details as it will lead to replications of this cheating device.
(If you are unfamiliar with the US power distribution, 2 hot sides (220V AC 60HZ)are coming down from the pole. Next the hot sides are distributed evenly to level-out the load bringing 120V AC to end consumer.)
I am not going into the details of the ferroresonance phenomenon here, as I am sure you've tried it. If not, here is a good read:
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/4/9/1301/pdf
http://www.powerqualityworld.com/2011/04/constant-voltage-ferroresonant.html
Next obvious step was to try and change the resonant frequency and see what happens. Sure enough getting away from the critical point brought back proper meter functioning. Kill-A-Watt, however, remained dumb no matter what I tried.
BTW, my playing with resonant frequencies resulted to two additional events: 1/ I burnt down the transformer by accidentally disconnecting one of the secondaries 2/ I had to make another transformer in order to continue my experiments.
So, sleep well tonight. OU is still not here.
~A
Quote from: Magluvin on January 17, 2016, 07:07:37 PM
But it still doesnt explain 'why' the polarity of the field changes with electron direction of motion. In a perm magnet the electrons are circling the atoms and that is the only electron motion happening in the magnet, say it is in the middle of nowhere without outer influence of other fields electrical or magnetic.
So is there a video that shows that the movement of electrons in a perm magnet are what produces the magnets polarized total field? TK seems to say yes. That is what I would be interested in seeing. ;D
Mags
There will be no video explaining any electron motion being the cause or giving rise to a permanent magnets magnetic field, or an associated electric field due to the motion of those electrons.
I feel as if the clouds are coming back, another vast empty dead zone untill the new hope comes.
Thanks for your honesty and dedication.
Still a useful device, maybe you can threaten to release this product and get a few bills out of it.
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 09:18:49 PM
There will be no video explaining any electron motion being the cause or giving rise to a permanent magnets magnetic field, or an associated electric field due to the motion of those electrons.
Take a look again, this stuff is all just basic nuts and bolts. You saw the instantaneous magnetic field for a charge moving in a straight line. It's a no brainer to make the charge one electron and have it move in a circle. A circle is just millions of short straight lines strung together.
Here is the video that you said won't exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PgE5TE8KI4
It's for a hydrogen atom, big deal. Note the circular motion equations are from grade 11 Physics. It's essentially the same thing for an iron atom where you can ignore the inner electrons and just deal with the outermost pair (if I recall correctly) of electrons.
Every iron atom has a calculable magnetic dipole moment. A magnetic domain is just millions of iron atoms with magnetic dipole moments that are all aligned in the same direction. All of the magnetic fields from each iron atom do vector addition with all of the other atoms in the magnetic domain to give you a magnetic dipole moment for the entire domain.
A magnet is just a collection of magnetic domains where most of the domains are pointing in the same direction.
A magnet is ultimately just trillions of magnetic fields added together that are produced by trillions of outer electrons in iron atoms that are mostly spinning in the same direction and with the same alignment.
So the magnetic field from a magnet is simply due to moving electrons.
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 09:18:49 PM
There will be no video explaining any electron motion being the cause or giving rise to a permanent magnets magnetic field, or an associated electric field due to the motion of those electrons.
Well, just like "stars invisible from space" and "no moon landings ever happened" and "Armstrong's boots", you will just deny that any evidence presented is valid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7a0M11HIOY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7a0M11HIOY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khdi996HL5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khdi996HL5I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3TdF4v6jGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3TdF4v6jGU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)
And many many more.
Why do I have to do your homework for you?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 17, 2016, 11:42:31 PM
Well, just like "stars invisible from space" and "no moon landings ever happened" and "Armstrong's boots", you will just deny that any evidence presented is valid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7a0M11HIOY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7a0M11HIOY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khdi996HL5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khdi996HL5I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3TdF4v6jGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3TdF4v6jGU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)
And many many more.
Why do I have to do your homework for you?
Feynman is deep.
Mags
Quote from: avalon on January 17, 2016, 02:13:51 PM
I don't. I am following the way you suggested in your post exactly.
If the device turn out to be more than just a cheating box, I will open it up and show.
However, I am not going to promote energy theft for many reasons, if the device will turn up as an elaborate kit to fool the utility.
California or not, basic rules still apply.
~A
Good for you Avalon... I regret not understanding your prudence in this from the beginning.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 17, 2016, 11:42:31 PM
Well, just like "stars invisible from space" and "no moon landings ever happened" and "Armstrong's boots", you will just deny that any evidence presented is valid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7a0M11HIOY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7a0M11HIOY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khdi996HL5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khdi996HL5I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3TdF4v6jGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3TdF4v6jGU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)
And many many more.
Why do I have to do your homework for you?
When have i said that stars are invisible from space?.
Have you provided 3rd party verification to the moon landing's ?-->a must with all extraordinary claims made. The evidence provided for the moon landings come's from only one source,and that is the source that created the hoax-along with the government. This !no third party! verification go's against everything we insist on in these forums when extraordinary claims are made.
It is like i said in the thread at OUR--those that !!need to believe!! will go against there own insistence on third party verification when it suits them. We did not go to the moon in 1969,and we still cannot go today.
You have provided no evidence that we went to the moon. You have provided only what NASA wanted you to see. Star trek had more truth to it than the moon landing hoax.
The video's you provided are junk-
1- indian you could barely understand
1-kid that was trying to fumble his way through some imaginary science
!!And!! Feynman--Who also made it very clear that he could not explain or knows what the magnetic force is.
Then you only need to look at how the electron orbits the nucleus,and the fact that the electrons of an atom carries a negative charge that is equal to the positive charge of the proton. This results in a zero net gain. The electron will orbit the nucleus the same way always,regardless of any domain alignment. And where is the electric field that is associated with these moving electrons within a permanent magnet?.
You will also note that it was mentioned several times that this is only a theory(what they believe !may! be giving rise to the magnetic field),but are not 100% sure. If they had it all nutted out,then they could provide a very accurate description of what the magnetic force is--but they cannot.
So like the !!moon landings!!,you have provided no solid evidence that the magnetic field is due to some alignment of electron spin. Theories are not facts.
Brad.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 17, 2016, 11:12:37 PM
Here is the video that you said won't exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PgE5TE8KI4
It's for a hydrogen atom, big deal. Note the circular motion equations are from grade 11 Physics. It's essentially the same thing for an iron atom where you can ignore the inner electrons and just deal with the outermost pair (if I recall correctly) of electrons.
Every iron atom has a calculable magnetic dipole moment. A magnetic domain is just millions of iron atoms with magnetic dipole moments that are all aligned in the same direction. All of the magnetic fields from each iron atom do vector addition with all of the other atoms in the magnetic domain to give you a magnetic dipole moment for the entire domain.
A magnet is just a collection of magnetic domains where most of the domains are pointing in the same direction.
A magnet is ultimately just trillions of magnetic fields added together that are produced by trillions of outer electrons in iron atoms that are mostly spinning in the same direction and with the same alignment.
Take a look again, this stuff is all just basic nuts and bolts.
OK,so from you !basic! nuts and bolts stuff,explain in detail as to what the magnetic force is.
QuoteYou saw the instantaneous magnetic field for a charge moving in a straight line. It's a no brainer to make the charge one electron and have it move in a circle. A circle is just millions of short straight lines strung together.
Where are these electric charges and fields within a permanent magnet that move in a straight line? Electrons move in circles ?-->no,electrons do not move in circles.
A circle is just millions of short straight lines strung together
It is also a dead short--no beginning,and no end.
QuoteSo the magnetic field from a magnet is simply due to moving electrons.
And yet this is ass about to everything else you(and most others) believe in,where as the moving electron is due to a magnetic field that changes with time. When the magnetic field dose not change with time(as with a permanent magnet),then there is no electron motion other than the electrons orbit around the protons in the atomic nucleus.
The math and the models seem to work beautifully, however the presenters start with assumptions that are not first explained e.g. electron orbital motion.
Accepting the present models and theories of the source of the electron dipole moment, we are still left with a fundamental question i.e. what sustains the electron orbital motion to produce a continuous electric current?
Tapping that "wheelwork" current and the FE quest may be solved.
Examining the extremely high "quality factor" of the earth's spin over many decades, despite a lossy frictional viscous surface induced by the moon's gravitational pull may hold some clues.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 18, 2016, 09:03:36 AM
The math and the models seem to work beautifully, however the presenters start with assumptions that are not first explained e.g. electron orbital motion.
Examining the extremely high "quality factor" of the earth's spin over many decades, despite a lossy frictional viscous surface induced by the moon's gravitational pull may hold some clues.
QuoteAccepting the present models and theories of the source of the electron dipole moment, we are still left with a fundamental question i.e. what sustains the electron orbital motion to produce a continuous electric current?
And the very reason i do not think they have the PM theory correct.
QuoteTapping that "wheelwork" current and the FE quest may be solved.
I think a good start would be to find a device that relies on a continual linear force to operate,rather than trying to get a device that requires an alternating force to operate,using a linear force to do it. The PM produces a constant linear force,so we need a device that need's a constant linear force in order for a PM to power it. This !may! include the tapping of this continual current or charge flow carriers.
Do we know of any devices that require a continual linear force in order for them to produce useful energy?-->i can think of one straight of the bat.
Brad
Avalon, Glad you figured it out and have disclosed your findings. I still think there is no reason to keep this secret and some good reasons to disclose it. Many find the Smart meters an invasion of privacy as well as generating unhealthy EMF in a house. Since this device can fool the smart meters this could give some leverage to eliminate their use if it became widely known how to fool the Smart meters. I've had an EMF meter for a long time and when they installed a smart meter on a place I was living in another state I found a large increase in EMF in the house and it seemed to be coming from anything that was grounded including some pipes running under the floor.
See: http://smartmeterdangers.org/
and http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/smart-meter-health-complaints/
Quote from: e2matrix on January 18, 2016, 11:35:50 AM
Avalon, Glad you figured it out and have disclosed your findings. I still think there is no reason to keep this secret and some good reasons to disclose it. Many find the Smart meters an invasion of privacy as well as generating unhealthy EMF in a house. Since this device can fool the smart meters this could give some leverage to eliminate their use if it became widely known how to fool the Smart meters. I've had an EMF meter for a long time and when they installed a smart meter on a place I was living in another state I found a large increase in EMF in the house and it seemed to be coming from anything that was grounded including some pipes running under the floor.
See: http://smartmeterdangers.org/
and http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/smart-meter-health-complaints/
That is a very interesting view you have and it has a lot of merit. A lot of merit indeed. The meters can cause cancer and then as a result, net the cancer industry up to 300.000 per patient.
Before he solved it, did anyone suggest putting distance between the potential Free-Energy-device( that this thread is based on ), and any man-made electrical-conductor or generator, to see the results .
------------
( In the following , I incorrectly refer to conductors emitting photons, I only type that to make it easier to understand . )
The motion of the electrons creates the magnetic-force in permanent-magnets and electromagnets .
[ I got it wrong a 2 days ago, I thought that the electrical-current in a conductor, which causes the conductor to emit photons ( or the material that photons are made of, you can't see it since it's at a different frequency to light, and has other different properties ), I thought that that emission of material is what the magnetic-field is composed of. So I could not understand how permanent-magnets work, since they have no reason to emit photons( or the material that photons are made of . ]
However, I just remembered that an electron has an electric-field, and when the electron spins in orbit, it must magnify or multiply the field, or something else resulting from it's motion.
So, what happens in the electromagnet is that the electrical-current merely polarizes the electron spin orbits in all the atoms( or the atoms themselves ) in the conductor , merely turning the conductor into a temporary magnet .
So, now I understand how a permanent-magnet works, the field is made of the spinning electric-fields of the the spinning-electrons, ( the orbits of all the atoms are polarized ), and, isn't the electric-field and the magnetic-field unified in the 'theory of relativity' or another of einstein's main theories, I think it is the 'theory of relativity' .
I knew it before, but I had forgotten it .
[ UPDATE : I also just remembered, or I could be wrong, that electrons give of a photon( or the material that photons are made of ) as they go from one energy-level to another energy-level( eg. from a low altitude orbit to a high altitude orbit ), and I wonder how often they give of these photons( photon material ), because the electrons and the atoms-core must be hit by photons( photon material ) very regularly, so I guess that either, the electrons-electric-field works by the emission and receivable of photons( or photon material ), or it's not connected to the electrons-electric-field ]
------------
Quote from: tinman on January 17, 2016, 06:01:14 PM
As i am unfamiliar with your house meter,it is hard to make any comment on this.
I can tell you that when i used my old arc welder out on the farm-where the house meter was the old wheel type,the meter use to spin backwards ???. There is also a video on youtube from some one else that shows this happening. Im really not sure as to how or why this happened,but it did. This would seem to indicate that more power was flowing back into the grid than was being consumed by the arc welder(some call them stick welders). However- this new digital smart meter that is on the house i am in at the moment !dose! read the power being consumed by the arc welder,and dose not start !reversing! like the old wheel meter did.
Firstly, what if the the arc-welder( a totally erratic effect ) caused the meter-wheel to do something like hops( like a learner-driver ) which caused the wheel to somehow shift backwards on it's axle.
But, what if that stream of electrons( or maybe pure electromotive-energy ) running through the air from the arc-welder, would actually start sucking electrons( ( or maybe pure electromotive-energy ) of the air-molecules, or maybe from elsewhere .
- The best comparison I can think of would be imagine a stream of water running through air which is very humid( high water content ), I would assume that that stream of water could possibly attach alot of airborne water and or air/water molecules to itself ( if that would work, maybe you could dry a room with it ) .
So, that got me thinking about those claimed free-energy electrostatic-generators( some well-known ones ), how do they work
Quote from: e2matrix on January 18, 2016, 11:35:50 AM
..........I found a large increase in EMF in the house and it seemed to be coming from anything that was grounded including some pipes running under the floor.
The only emitting part in the smart meter is a module called MicroAP. It is made by Silver Spring Networks and, essentially, is a network interface card (NIC) that operates at speed of up to 300kbps for data transfer. It supports GPRS/HSPA/EVDO and 1-XRTT and uses 900 MHz NAN and 2.4 GHz HAN radio modes. What makes that particular NIC different from the any other found in, let's say your laptop, is that it can form a mesh with neighboring devices (up to 250) and provide cellular backhaul for them. I've always suspected that was the case but never knew for sure until recently.
What I do not know is the transmitting power of the MicroAP but I'll do some more digging.
~A
Quote from: avalon on January 18, 2016, 12:13:30 PM
The only emitting part in the smart meter is a module called MicroAP. It is made by Silver Spring Networks and, essentially, is a network interface card (NIC) that operates at speed of up to 300kbps for data transfer. It supports GPRS/HSPA/EVDO and 1-XRTT and uses 900 MHz NAN and 2.4 GHz HAN radio modes. What makes that particular NIC different from the any other found in, let's say your laptop, is that it can form a mesh with neighboring devices (up to 250) and provide cellular backhaul for them. I've always suspected that was the case but never knew for sure until recently.
What I do not know is the transmitting power of the MicroAP but I'll do some more digging.
~A
Hi A Valon,
Here are the specs for the 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands, in page 2:
http://www.gegridsolutions.com/products/brochures/SmartMetering/I210-SSN-MicroAP_GEA-12873.pdf (http://www.gegridsolutions.com/products/brochures/SmartMetering/I210-SSN-MicroAP_GEA-12873.pdf)
Probably the indicated power output levels are at the the transmitters output and does not include possible antenna gain (this is a guess from me).
Gyula
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 18, 2016, 04:48:05 AM
Good for you Avalon... I regret not understanding your prudence in this from the beginning.
I congratulate you for acknowledging your mistake and I hope that you learned a lesson. I asked you if you ever tested a transformer on a bench and you intentionally ignored the question. So I assume that you never did any tests like that and have little or no electronics experience. There was direct evidence as mentioned by PicoWatt - there was a voltage drop in the mains line when the system was supposedly working showing clearly that power was flowing through the wires - but you chose to ignore that also. You did a spin job on Avalon claiming that he was a senior researcher but I was not even aware of him before this and he only has about 150 postings. You made a lot of claims with no evidence or logic to back them up.
Don't fall in love with a free energy proposition, just speak the truth to the best of your abilities. If you are just a cheerleader without really thinking, it just encourages others to do the same thing. Criminals feed on that naivete and take advantage of people. Right now you have an old lady in Canada that wants to give $120,000 to criminal con artists that will use that money to freeload. This is part and parcel of the free energy scene so caution is always the best course of action.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 18, 2016, 04:48:36 PM
I congratulate you for acknowledging your mistake and I hope that you learned a lesson. I asked you if you ever tested a transformer on a bench and you intentionally ignored the question. So I assume that you never did any tests like that and have little or no electronics experience. There was direct evidence as mentioned by PicoWatt - there was a voltage drop in the mains line when the system was supposedly working showing clearly that power was flowing through the wires - but you chose to ignore that also. You did a spin job on Avalon claiming that he was a senior researcher but I was not even aware of him before this and he only has about 150 postings. You made a lot of claims with no evidence or logic to back them up.
Don't fall in love with a free energy proposition, just speak the truth to the best of your abilities. If you are just a cheerleader without really thinking, it just encourages others to do the same thing. Criminals feed on that naivete and take advantage of people. Right now you have an old lady in Canada that wants to give $120,000 to criminal con artists that will use that money to freeload. This is part and parcel of the free energy scene so caution is always the best course of action.
I never bothered answering your question because of your attitude...
Formatting problems - I will highlight Tinman's text in bold.
Take a look again, this stuff is all just basic nuts and bolts.
OK,so from you !basic! nuts and bolts stuff,explain in detail as to what the magnetic force is.
A lot of people are tired of hearing that. It's a total cop out to ask that question in an accusatory manner when you can't answer it yourself. You can look up the definitions on Google if you want to. How about you write a 1000-word essay on what water tastes like?
That fist clip I linked to says that you can calculate the magnetic field around a moving charge everywhere in the Universe. What more do you want? That is just describing Nature - it's what's in the deck of cards that was dealt to us that describes the Universe that we are living in. You should be impressed that we have figured it out. It's just real reality.
Where are these electric charges and fields within a permanent magnet that move in a straight line? Electrons move in circles ?-->no,electrons do not move in circles.
"Electrons move in circles" is a perfectly reasonable simplification for purposes of this discussion. You want to go argue atomic physics, find someone to take up the argument with you because it's not me. They figured out things like the s,p,d and f electron orbitals and a whole lot of other things. Because of that they can look at star spectra and tell you what the stars are made of.
A circle is just millions of short straight lines strung together.
It is also a dead short--no beginning,and no end.
Saying a circle is a dead short doesn't make any sense. Go look at the first clip I linked to.
And yet this is ass about to everything else you(and most others) believe in,where as the moving electron is due to a magnetic field that changes with time. When the magnetic field dose not change with time(as with a permanent magnet),then there is no electron motion other than the electrons orbit around the protons in the atomic nucleus.
What's ass about is this phrase, "where as the moving electron is due to a magnetic field that changes with time." It doesn't really make any sense and I am not going to "fill in the blanks" to make it make sense. Think about what you are going to write and review your own prose before you commit to it and post it.
Magnets are magnets because trillions of spinning electrons make little micro magnets. We know what the field produced by every micro magnet is everywhere in the Universe. The majority of the electrons that count are spinning in the same direction. So trillions of tiny micro magnets make a macro magnet. That's the way it is and if you refuse to believe this and have some unexplained and undefined explanation unique unto you then so be it.
I find it quite interesting that you don't believe that we went to the moon. The moon shot was just another exercise in nuts and bolts. I kind of understand now how you can look at a simple pulse motor that you just put together by happenstance and actually believe that you are observing something that "science can't explain." It's more like you can't explain it and then you take this leap of logic and assume that you are in some kind of uncharted electronics territory.
Quote from: Just..Sayin.. on January 18, 2016, 04:51:21 PM
I never bothered answering your question because of your attitude...
That's a lame excuse. It's wasn't my "attitude," it was because you wanted to ignore facts and statements in favour of your fantasy. You didn't want to entertain other views that made perfect sense and ignoring things is part and parcel of that.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 18, 2016, 05:16:52 PM
Formatting problems - I will highlight Tinman's text in bold.
Take a look again, this stuff is all just basic nuts and bolts.
OK,so from you !basic! nuts and bolts stuff,explain in detail as to what the magnetic force is.
QuoteA lot of people are tired of hearing that. It's a total cop out to ask that question in an accusatory manner when you can't answer it yourself.
A lot of people are also tired of hearing how !some! seem to think they have it all worked out,and yet cannot describe !at all! what the magnetic force is. It is not a cop out-it is a reality. I have never claimed to be able to answer as to what the magnetic force is,i have only presented a theory-nothing more. The thing is,you (nor anyone else)can say my theory is wrong,as you do not know what is right.
QuoteYou can look up the definitions on Google if you want to. How about you write a 1000-word essay on what water tastes like?
Well,as you are trying to be a smart ass here,you should know that water taste different to each person,as dose all foods and liquids.
QuoteThat fist clip I linked to says that you can calculate the magnetic field around a moving charge everywhere in the Universe. What more do you want?
To explain as to how-->Quote Vortex1: what sustains the electron orbital motion to produce a continuous electric current?
I have used Vortex's word's,as i have a feeling that my own words would not meet your needs.
But it takes work to create and maintain a magnetic field. So how is this continual work being done?-where is this endless supply of energy coming from?.
QuoteThat is just describing Nature - it's what's in the deck of cards that was dealt to us that describes the Universe that we are living in. You should be impressed that we have figured it out. It's just real reality.
Lol. Man has figured nothing out in regards to magnetic and gravitational fields. They do not know what either is,only the effects they produce.
QuoteElectrons move in circles" is a perfectly reasonable simplification for purposes of this discussion.
No-it is a large misconception. It is just as bad as saying the earth orbit's the sun. It seems that when i try and describe something,you insist that correct and exact descriptions must be provided,and yet you are able to use !simplifications! when you see fit.
QuoteWhat's ass about is this phrase, "where as the moving electron is due to a magnetic field that changes with time." It doesn't really make any sense and I am not going to "fill in the blanks" to make it make sense. Think about what you are going to write and review your own prose before you commit to it and post it.
And bingo-->please be more accurate lol.
QuoteMagnets are magnets because trillions of spinning electrons make little micro magnets. We know what the field produced by every micro magnet is everywhere in the Universe. The majority of the electrons that count are spinning in the same direction. So trillions of tiny micro magnets make a macro magnet. That's the way it is and if you refuse to believe this and have some unexplained and undefined explanation unique unto you then so be it.
So where dose the energy come from to maintain this endless spinning that gives rise to the magnetic field?.
How dose something that spins in a !!circle! produce a unidirectional force,or flow?.
QuoteI find it quite interesting that you don't believe that we went to the moon.
So do what we insist on here ,when extraordinary claims are made. Provide a third party verification that we went to the moon. The fact is,you cannot,as the only evidence we have that we went to the moon,is that provided by the very people that produced the hoax in the first place-->NASA.
Here are some verification's that we did not,and cannot yet go to the moon-by people that work for those that produced the hoax in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA
QuoteThe moon shot was just another exercise in nuts and bolts. I kind of understand now how you can look at a simple pulse motor that you just put together by happenstance and actually believe that you are observing something that "science can't explain." It's more like you can't explain it and then you take this leap of logic and assume that you are in some kind of uncharted electronics territory.
You walk around with blinders on MH-as do some others.
You cannot see bullshit when it is place right before you. You blindly believe what you seen on TV,or what others tell you,in stead of using common sense-->but only when you choose to do so-->only when the need to believe is greater than the need to understand the truth.
Brad.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 18, 2016, 05:30:01 PM
That's a lame excuse. It's wasn't my "attitude," it was because you wanted to ignore facts and statements in favour of your fantasy. You didn't want to entertain other views that made perfect sense and ignoring things is part and parcel of that.
Just like the Apollo mission's-hey MH?.
Quote from: gyulasun on January 18, 2016, 03:15:59 PM
Hi A Valon,
Here are the specs for the 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands, in page 2:
http://www.gegridsolutions.com/products/brochures/SmartMetering/I210-SSN-MicroAP_GEA-12873.pdf (http://www.gegridsolutions.com/products/brochures/SmartMetering/I210-SSN-MicroAP_GEA-12873.pdf)
Probably the indicated power output levels are at the the transmitters output and does not include possible antenna gain (this is a guess from me).
Gyula
Thank you very much. Very useful and, I might add, surprising. 1W in 900Mhz band!? That's a lot of transmitting power.
~A
QuoteTo explain as to how-->Quote Vortex1: what sustains the electron orbital motion to produce a continuous electric current?
I have used Vortex's word's,as i have a feeling that my own words would not meet your needs.
But it takes work to create and maintain a magnetic field. So how is this continual work being done?-where is this endless supply of energy coming from?.
I don't even pretend to be an atomic physicist. But there are some basic common sense things that probably apply.
The Earth is in orbit around the Sun at a certain radial distance and that represents an "energy state." Look up the concept if you have to. An electron is in orbit around the nucleus and that represents an energy state. Both energy states are constant. There is no friction in both cases. So there is no "continuous work" taking place at all.
It does not take work to maintain a magnetic field at all. You should realize this. It only takes work to create the magnetic field.
Where does the work come from? I can just speculate: There is attraction between a nucleus and an electron. If an electron falls into a nucleus from a distance it increases in energy -> that energy becomes the energy state of the electron in orbit.
I am guessing that you are questioning atomic physics and particle physics without knowing anything about the subject matter. I know a small amount and am trying to create a reasonable picture.
There is no "endless supply of energy." For that for sure you are dead wrong. I think you are arguing from near total ignorance with respect to this subject matter.
As far as the moon trip goes, any mathematician can go up to a blackboard and do the calculations that prove that a big tin can full of rocket fuel can get into orbit and then push a smaller tin can on a trajectory to the moon. Then an even smaller tin can can land on the moon, and then an even smaller tin can can come back to the Earth. It is entirely physically possible and can be proven on a blackboard in 15 minutes. I have read stuff debunking the Van Allen belt radiation claims. Just like the claims that the shadows in the pictures are all wrong are ridiculous.
Here's a lot more evidence for TinMan to deny:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)
Here's some information about LROC that you may not have realized, TinMan:
QuoteImages taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Module) descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Surface_Experiment_Package) (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_rover) tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories.[42][43][44] Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter) at Arizona State University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University), along with many other academic groups.[45] At least some of these groups, such as German Aerospace Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Aerospace_Center), Berlin, are not located in the USA, and are not funded by the US government.[46]
Of course all these academic groups and even the German Aerospace Center are in on the Hoax, and images from LROC are being doctored every day to keep up the big lie. Aren't they, TinMan? There are secret classrooms full of graduate students at ASU, being paid by NASA, to perpetuate the myth, year after year ..... right.
And of course the retroreflector ranging data is faked, isn't it, even though anyone with the right equipment can fire a laser at the moon and get the same data back, proving there are man-made objects sitting on the moon.
This strange fixation of yours, TinMan, makes you look pretty silly, I must admit.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Quote from: MileHigh on January 18, 2016, 10:21:21 PM
I don't even pretend to be an atomic physicist. But there are some basic common sense things that probably apply.
QuoteThe Earth is in orbit around the Sun at a certain radial distance and that represents an "energy state."
No,the earth is not in orbit !around! the sun. The earth follows a helical path behind the sun,as the sun travels through space on it's own helical path along the galactic plane.
Quote
Look up the concept if you have to. An electron is in orbit around the nucleus and that represents an energy state. Both energy states are constant. There is no friction in both cases. So there is no "continuous work" taking place at all.
It does not take work to maintain a magnetic field at all. You should realize this. It only takes work to create the magnetic field.
So you are claiming that no work is being done to maintain the electric field that exist along with the motion of the electron?.
I am guessing that you are questioning atomic physics and particle physics without knowing anything about the subject matter. I know a small amount and am trying to create a reasonable picture.
QuoteThere is no "endless supply of energy." For that for sure you are dead wrong. I think you are arguing from near total ignorance with respect to this subject matter.
So you are saying that Vortex1 is also wrong?.
QuoteWhere does the work come from? I can just speculate: There is attraction between a nucleus and an electron. If an electron falls into a nucleus from a distance it increases in energy -> that energy becomes the energy state of the electron in orbit.
And how is this energy state maintained?.
QuoteAs far as the moon trip goes, any mathematician can go up to a blackboard and do the calculations that prove that a big tin can full of rocket fuel can get into orbit and then push a smaller tin can on a trajectory to the moon. Then an even smaller tin can can land on the moon, and then an even smaller tin can can come back to the Earth. It is entirely physically possible and can be proven on a blackboard in 15 minutes. I have read stuff debunking the Van Allen belt radiation claims. Just like the claims that the shadows in the pictures are all wrong are ridiculous.
So the NASA scientist ,and the NASA astronaut are lying?
I can also prove within 5 minutes that the moon landings are fake,just using the lunar rovers on there own.
Brad
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 18, 2016, 11:02:37 PM
Here's a lot more evidence for TinMan to deny:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)
Aren't they, TinMan? There are secret classrooms full of graduate students at ASU, being paid by NASA, to perpetuate the myth, year after year ..... right.
QuoteThis strange fixation of yours, TinMan, makes you look pretty silly, I must admit.
Really?.
Lets look at your provided !third party! proof of the moon walkers. And this will be from the link you provided.
QuoteAnd of course the retroreflector ranging data is faked, isn't it, even though anyone with the right equipment can fire a laser at the moon and get the same data back, proving there are man-made objects sitting on the moon.
Quote from your link.
Quote: Strictly speaking, although the reflectors are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon, and their locations are consistent with NASA's claims, they do not prove humans have visited the Moon.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
QuoteHere's some information about LROC that you may not have realized, TinMan:
Of course all these academic groups and even the German Aerospace Center are in on the Hoax, and images from LROC are being doctored every day to keep up the big lie.
Where are these nice clear images from the LRO of the equipment left behind on the moon?. -There are none-oh,except for the one below-pic 1. Is this the best you have?.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
Now for a bit more from your link.
Quote 1-In this section is evidence, by independent researchers, that NASA's account is correct. However, at least somewhere in the investigation, there was some NASA involvement, or use of US government resources.
Lol-NASA and government involvement.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
2-SELENE photographs[edit]
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.
With a resolution of 10 meters ::)
Where is the lunar rover in the picture taken from SELENE ?,or even the ruddy great rock next to the rover in the original apollo pictures?
Pictures 2 and 3 are the original pictures !apparently! taken on the apollo 15 mission. Picture 4 is from the SELENE -->that has a resolution of 10 meters :D
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
3-The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume.
What engine blast--what plume of dust?.
Show me one original video that shows any sort of blast crater under the lunar lander module.
If this plume of dust that is suppose to exist,or was created,covered the ground so as to change surface reflectivity,then why isnt there any of this dust from this plume on the lander foot pad's?. The foot pad's(which are bowl/dish shaped) would have caught some of this dust from the plume. But no-nothing to be seen in any photo showing the foot pad's in any of the apollo missions.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
4-Chandrayaan-1[edit]
As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware.
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
5-Chang'e 2[edit]
China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified
Lol-aint that a hoot :D
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
6-Kettering Grammar School[edit]
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their !!orbits!!.[10][11] In 1972 a member of the group "picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon
Evidence that man went to the moon=0
7-This event can be traced with the Apollo 8 Flight Journal, noting that launch was at 0751 EST or 12:51 UT on December 21
Dr. Michael Moutsoulas at Pic du Midi Observatory reported an initial sighting around 17:10(4 hours and 19 minutes after lift off) UT on December 21 with the 1.1-metre reflector as an object (magnitude near 10, through clouds) moving eastward near the predicted location of Apollo 8
!!Now TK,as you are a bit of an amateur Astronomer,tell us how well you could spot or track an object that small,traveling at the speed that the apollo space craft was travelling at,and through cloud's at that ?.!! ;)
Justus Dunlap and others at Corralitos Observatory (then operated by Northwestern University) obtained over 400 short-exposure intensified images, giving very accurate locations for the spacecraft
The 2.1m Otto Struve Telescope at McDonald Observatory, from 01:50–2:37 UT on December 23, observed the brightest object flashing as bright as magnitude 15, with the flash pattern recurring about once a minute
The Lick Observatory observations during the return coast to Earth produced live television pictures broadcast to United States west coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco.
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[16] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[17] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made
Rachel, Chabot Observatory's 20-inch refracting telescope, helps bring Apollo 13 and its crew home. One last burn of the lunar lander engines was needed before the crippled spacecraft's re-entry into the Earth's
Apollo 14[edit]
Main article: Apollo 14
Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14<--thats great :D
Apollo 16[edit]
Main article: Apollo 16
Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16.[6]
At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment
Apollo 17[edit]
Main article: Apollo 17
Sven Grahn describes several amateur sightings of Apollo 17<--Where?.
And the list go's on and on.
Total evidence that man went to the moon from the provided link by TK=0
I have no problem believing that they could have been in earth orbit at that time in history,and i have no problem believing that we could have sent a craft to the moon, But man never went,because they just could not,and still cannot today-as has been described by NASA engineers and astronauts them self.
So i see no evidence what so ever in the link you provided TK,that proves man went to the moon.
In fact,most of what is described on that page is comical.
I think that page TK is making you look pretty silly if you think there is any proof what so ever provided in that link that proves man went to the moon.
Brad
P.S
I have to add this TK.
If some one provided this kind of !!so called!! evidence to back up a claim of an overunity device,you would laugh in there face.
@ TK and MH
TK,this is a picture from that link you posted that was suppose to show proof-or third party proof that man did walk on the moon--which it did not.
But what it did do,is once again show that the pictures taken on the !!moon!! are fake.
I wonder if you really take a good hard look at !!what is suppose to be! this proof you provide-->or do you prefer to turn a blind eye due to the need to believe.
It is ironic that the link your provided to show evidence that man was on the moon,ended up being a link that show's the pictures taken on the !!moon!! are fake.
The picture in the link you provided is quite good quality,and you can blow it up quite a lot on windows picture viewer,and it will still remain quite clear.
So after you have done that,could you please show us all where the wheel tracks for the rover are ???. I mean,i can clearly see the foot prints left by the moon walkers,but see no wheel tracks for the rover. Did the rover fly to that position?--maybe the moon walkers carried it there? :D
Here is the link TK posted to show the third party proof that man walked on the moon,and also the source for the image below -->for those interested in the truth.
So go ahead,copy and save the image from the provided !!proof!! link,and enlarge the image to see if you can find the rover wheel tracks.
There are no wheel tracks to either the front,rear or in between the wheels them self. This clearly shows the rover was lowered by some sort of winching device into place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Brad
Quote from: picowatt on January 18, 2016, 11:36:38 PM
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Perhaps some words from a current astronaut/commander and NASA scientist/engineer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 19, 2016, 05:23:10 AM
Perhaps some words from a current astronaut/commander and NASA scientist/engineer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA
Brad
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
So the US beat the Russians to the moon using by using a studio and the Reds let us get away with it?? The Russians with all their spies would have known and would have embarrassed the hell out of the US during the cold war. But they didn't because they couldn't! It was all for real.
For just that reason alone, Armstrong did walk on the moon.
Quote from: picowatt on January 19, 2016, 05:50:33 AM
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
I seen it the firt time,and your point is what?
Is there reference to satellites orbiting above 1000 mile's from earth-in the van allen belts them self? Is there any scientific data that they have that tells us how dangerous-or the amount of deadly radiation exists in the van allen belt's back in 69?,or did we just sent the first lot of astronauts through them,and hope for the best?.
Do you have an answer as to why there are no wheel tracks from the lunar rovers in the pics i posted above ?-->from TK's third party proof link.
Can you explain as to why these other pictures below from various apollo missions also show lunar rovers that leave no tracks?. All from NASA's own web site if you wish to go look-->just in case you think the pictures have been modified.
NASA's own web site has these pictures and video's that show hoax through and through.
But start with explaining as to why there are no wheel tracks from the rover's. If you can do that,then we will open a thread here,and post the rest of the evidence that i believe show's the moon landings were fake.
Brad
Quote from: pomodoro on January 19, 2016, 07:13:51 AM
So the US beat the Russians to the moon using by using a studio and the Reds let us get away with it?? The Russians with all their spies would have known and would have embarrassed the hell out of the US during the cold war. But they didn't because they couldn't! It was all for real.
For just that reason alone, Armstrong did walk on the moon.
Unless of course the USA found out that Russia didnt put a man in space when they claimed they did.
Do you have any proof other than what NASA has supplied ,that man walked on the moon.
TK tried to provide some 3rd party proof,but it turned out that that link provided yet another fake picture of a !!lunar rover!! that left no wheel tracks--along with the others i have provided above.
Sorry about the size of the pic's,but something like this needs to be very clear.
Quote from: tinman on January 19, 2016, 07:14:54 AM
I seen it the firt time,and your point is what?
Is there reference to satellites orbiting above 1000 mile's from earth-in the van allen belts them self?
I thought you were discussing Apollo, in particular that
radiation exposure made manned moon missions impossible,
which the provided link discusses.
Also, from that link, "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes
out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint",
which is also relevant to the link you posted.
I did, however, get a chuckle from the "Bozos suspended from wires" comment
in the video link you provided, apparently the ISS is not real or manned either.
Quote
Do you have an answer as to why there are no wheel tracks from the lunar rovers in the pics i posted above ?-->from TK's third party proof link.
Yes
Quote
Can you explain as to why these other pictures below from various apollo missions also show lunar rovers that leave no tracks?. All from NASA's own web site if you wish to go look-->just in case you think the pictures have been modified.
Yes
Quote
NASA's own web site has these pictures and video's that show hoax through and through.
But start with explaining as to why there are no wheel tracks from the rover's. If you can do that,then we will open a thread here,and post the rest of the evidence that i believe show's the moon landings were fake.
Brad
Regarding the tracks, consider the images in which one does see tracks
and what those tracks look like (depth, etc). Also consider the physical
qualities of the lunar soil, the lunar vacuum, low gravity, and then watch
video of a rover in motion.
However, don't bother making a new thread. It is obvious that many are
emotionally invested in their "beliefs" and like religion, I rarely waste my time
with what often ends up in fruitless non-ending heated debates, and I can
tell right off that this would be one of them.
I merely wanted to post the link discussing Apollo radiation exposure.
As Ripley would say, "believe it or not"...
PW
Click on this Link to watch a FREE Video that ABSOLUTELY PROVES they never went to the moon.
If you buy this video privately, it costs around $50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4h2czZTTLM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4h2czZTTLM)
.
Quote from: picowatt on January 19, 2016, 08:07:25 AM
I thought you were discussing Apollo, in particular that
radiation exposure made manned moon missions impossible,
which the provided link discusses.
Also, from that link, "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes
out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint",
which is also relevant to the link you posted.
Yes
Yes
I merely wanted to post the link discussing Apollo radiation exposure.
As Ripley would say, "believe it or not"...
PW
QuoteI did, however, get a chuckle from the "Bozos suspended from wires" comment
in the video link you provided, apparently the ISS is not real or manned either.
There are many video's in the NASA archives that clearly show the astronauts being suspended on wire's. And some of there moves would put Michael Jackson to shame.
The ISS i do firmly believe in,as i have seen it with my own eyes through my tracking scope--no argument from me on that one. However/lol--i believe some of the video's that are suppose to be shot on the ISS ,leave a bit to be desired.
QuoteRegarding the tracks, consider the images in which one does see tracks
and what those tracks look like (depth, etc). Also consider the physical
qualities of the lunar soil, the lunar vacuum, low gravity, and then watch
video of a rover in motion.
Well the tracks are a no brainer,and we only have to look at the astronauts foot print's, the depth of those foot prints,and the weight of the astronauts on the moon to know that the luner rovers should leave a very decent track. I mean,the pictures posted by the moon walker believers from the lunar orbitor of shots of what is suppose to be the left over equipment,clearly show the tracks from the lunar rover's. So one would think that if you can see them from space,you should be able to see them from 5 feet away ::)
QuoteHowever, don't bother making a new thread. It is obvious that many are
emotionally invested in their "beliefs" and like religion, I rarely waste my time
with what often ends up in fruitless non-ending heated debates, and I can
tell right off that this would be one of them.
Indeed.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 19, 2016, 09:07:48 AM
Well the tracks are a no brainer,and we only have to look at the astronauts foot print's, the depth of those foot prints,and the weight of the astronauts on the moon to know that the luner rovers should leave a very decent track.
No, it actually does require a "brainer". The action of the rover
wheels is significantly different than astronaut footprints. Watch
some videos of rovers in motion. The first close up image you posted
of no rover tracks actually provides clues to the answer.
As I said, I only wanted to provide the link regarding the VAB radiation, which
many use as proof man did not go to the moon. To me that argument is a non-starter.
Again, in the end, we will all believe what we want...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 19, 2016, 09:27:31 AM
No, it actually does require a "brainer". The action of the rover
wheels is significantly different than astronaut footprints. Watch
some videos of rovers in motion. The first close up image you posted
of no rover tracks actually provides clues to the answer.
As I said, I only wanted to provide the link regarding the VAB radiation, which
many use as proof man did not go to the moon. To me that argument is a non-starter.
Again, in the end, we will all believe what we want...
PW
When the rovers are slowing to a stop,then the tracks would be well made and even,and easy to see. In regards to the rovers motion on the moon-->it is wrong,and easily proven here on earth.
I work every day fitting off road suspension to off road and 4x4 vehicles,and i know how suspension and vehicle reactions take place in regards to weight.
When you watch the lunar rovers moving on the moon,why is it in slow motion?. As the vehicle would weigh more here on earth than on the moon,then when the wheels hit a bump here on earth,the upward thrust the suspension would place on the vehicle would cause a slower upward reaction,where as on the moon,where the vehicle weighs 1/6th than it would here on earth,the vehicle should have a much quicker upward reaction. But we see this slow motion crap,and that is just wrong. When the lunar rover hit a bug bump or hole,the vehicle should rise up/bounce up quickly,and fall back down slower than it would here on earth-->but as i said,we see the opposite,where it all looks like it's in slow motion.
More weight=rise slower,fall faster---less weight=rise faster,fall slower.
It really is funny to watch the rovers in slow motion,that dose not represent reality at all.
So as far as the pictures are concerned,we should see rover tracks very clearly in all those picture's--like the one below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU
Quote from: FatBird on January 19, 2016, 08:22:58 AM
Click on this Link to watch a $45 Documentary that ABSOLUTELY PROVES they never went to the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4h2czZTTLM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4h2czZTTLM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-hZhr2k2hk
Money money money money.
Greed greed greed greed greed.
That "documentary" is high comedy. It's just an excuse to make money. Some sleaze knows
that he can churn out that fake pulp crap and then go to the annual cable TV industry conventions
to sell it. All of the producers for the sci-fi and conspiracy specialty cable channels around the
world are desperate to buy new content that will attract eyeballs so that the advertisers will pay
to place commercials on their channels. It's all just a sleazy money game. It's just another
version of the "three-headed baby."
The people that made that crap are laughing all the way to the bank and they don't believe a
word of it. The female narrator just did a gig for the money and she probably never even
watched the final version. Instead, she snickers to herself while standing in the supermarket
checkout line while looking at tabloid trash magazines with articles about three-headed babies.
Quote from: avalon on January 18, 2016, 06:17:25 PM
Thank you very much. Very useful and, I might add, surprising. 1W in 900Mhz band!? That's a lot of transmitting power.
~A
Same pdf mentioned 2 watts for the WAN transceiver in several frequency bands including 900 MHz.
Quote from: e2matrix on January 19, 2016, 11:57:57 AM
Same pdf mentioned 2 watts for the WAN transceiver in several frequency bands including 900 MHz.
E2Matrix,
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Smartmeter
shown in the tear down video can tell the difference between
a 10 amp at 120V load and a 10 amp at 240V load.
Check out the single current sense coil with only two wires coming
from it. Also note how one of the legs passes thru the Isense coil
in a direction opposite to the opposing phase.
Also note the small wires coming off the two main legs after the Isense
coil most likely for both circuit power and Vsense.
10 amps at 120V or 10 amps at 240V, how does it know?
PW
Here is where part of it is done in a Studio when a LADDER FALLS from the ceiling.
Caution = LOTS of profanity as they Joke Around FAKING it. They FIND IT REALLY FUNNY TO FOOL PEOPLE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGPDkrWL9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGPDkrWL9k)
.
Quote from: picowatt on January 19, 2016, 12:03:32 PM
E2Matrix,
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Smartmeter
shown in the tear down video can tell the difference between
a 10 amp at 120V load and a 10 amp at 240V load.
Check out the single current sense coil with only two wires coming
from it. Also note how one of the legs passes thru the Isense coil
in a direction opposite to the opposing phase.
Also note the small wires coming off the two main legs after the Isense
coil most likely for both circuit power and Vsense.
10 amps at 120V or 10 amps at 240V, how does it know?
PW
Notice that what the guy later states is probably the current sense coil also has a heavy bar going into it and out of it beside the blue and white wires. That is probably the neutral between the two 'hot' legs and so is a center tap on the coil.
Quote from: e2matrix on January 19, 2016, 12:50:34 PM
Notice that what the guy later states is probably the current sense coil also has a heavy bar going into it and out of it beside the blue and white wires. That is probably the neutral between the two 'hot' legs.
The neutral is not connected to, and does not pass thru the meter in the US.
The neutral goes directly from the service panel neutral bar to the pole transformer center tap
(and a local ground rod).
There are two "bars" passing thru the Isense coil. These are the two line phases from the pole.
One of them passes thru in the opposite direction to the other which would flip that line's phase.
PW
Here is something I have never seen mentioned. Since the moon has no atmosphere (just a vacuum)
WHY aren't the space suits PUFFED UP as hard as a FOOTBALL? Nobody has ever pointed that out!
Here is a VERY interesting video that shows 10 reasons they never went to the moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQyS-5ZmO_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQyS-5ZmO_E)
.
You are really silly. For one thing, the internal pressure is about 1/3 that of sea-level pressure.
Why don't you actually do some homework on your own before you post your silly conspiracy-theory mishmash?
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/spacesuits/home/clickable_suit_nf.html (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/spacesuits/home/clickable_suit_nf.html)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L
And as far as the other video is concerned -- I'm sure that one can find all kinds of out-takes from various movies that "prove" the existence of Wookies, light sabers, the Millenium Falcon, space warps and even intelligent raccoons. Have fun! But when you try to denigrate one of the greatest achievements the human race has ever accomplished, and that has all kinds of positive evidence and proofs, you'll have to dissect _every one_ of the positive proofs and somehow demonstrate that they are faked. Which you cannot do. Meanwhile very one of the "conspiracy" claims is easily disproven by real evidence, and all you are left with is stomping your feet, holding your breath and screaming "It's all faked" !!
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 19, 2016, 05:08:48 PM
You are really silly. For one thing, the internal pressure is about 1/3 that of sea-level pressure.
Why don't you actually do some homework on your own before you post your silly conspiracy-theory mishmash?
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/spacesuits/home/clickable_suit_nf.html
And as far as the other video is concerned -- I'm sure that one can find all kinds of out-takes from various movies that "prove" the existence of Wookies, light sabers, the Millenium Falcon, space warps and even intelligent raccoons. Have fun! Which you cannot do.
QuoteBut when you try to denigrate one of the greatest achievements the human race has ever accomplished, and that has all kinds of positive evidence and proofs, you'll have to dissect _every one_ of the positive proofs and somehow demonstrate that they are faked.
I am yet to see any positive proofs that are not provided by NASA.
QuoteMeanwhile very one of the "conspiracy" claims is easily disproven by real evidence, and all you are left with is stomping your feet, holding your breath and screaming "It's all faked" !!
OK,maybe we start with sorting out one simple problem first.
Where are the wheel tracks from the lunar rover in the pictures i supplied--from NASA them self,and one from the link you provided TK.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 19, 2016, 05:16:38 PM
OK,maybe we start with sorting out one simple problem first.
Where are the wheel tracks from the lunar rover in the pictures i supplied--from NASA them self,and one from the link you provided TK.
Brad
Very good point. ???
Mags
lots of wheel tracks in some pics. astronauts get out scurry around a lot covering the tracks. Multiple shadow angles in pictures and fluttering flag explained by this popular physicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk
There are explanations for all the nonsense claims that the moon hoaxer conspiracy nuts come up with. You just need to dig deep enough and know how to interpret what is observed.
Simple explanation of multiple shadows - there is light from the Sun, light reflected off the Earth as well as reflected light of the Moon.
Simple explanation of the flag. It was not cloth - it was tin foil unrolled to look like a flag fluttering so it could be clearly seen in photos as the American flag.
Quote from: tinman on January 19, 2016, 05:16:38 PM
OK,maybe we start with sorting out one simple problem first.
"First" it was the radiation, now its the tire tracks. It just never ends...
Quote
Where are the wheel tracks from the lunar rover in the pictures i supplied--from NASA them self,and one from the link you provided TK.
With but few exceptions, the only time that the rover leaves tracks in the lunar soil is when it is just starting off from being stopped, moving very slowly, or maneuvering in a turn or circle.
The physical properties of the lunar soil in concert with the layered construction of the wheels and the lack of atmosphere causes the rover to cover its own tracks. Notice that even during full out rooster tails there is little hang time or drift of the dust as it settles rather quickly due to there being no atmosphere. Also note that the rooster tails have greater upward arcs than are seen here on earth due to the reduced gravity (and lack of atmosphere as well). Essentially, the lunar soil picked up by the wheels falls back to the surface directly onto the rover's tracks.
Watch as many videos as you can of the rovers in motion and you will see how this happens. Even when moving fairly slowly, the way the soil falls from trailing edge of the wheels (and between the fenders) tends to cover the rover's tracks.
Surely this explanation makes more sense than believing a crane was used to drop the rover into each "faked" shot instead of just driving it onto a freshly powdered movie set. Are we also to believe that Stanley Kubrick, or whoever, was too blind to realize there were no tire tracks in the film being made? Perhaps we are to believe that NASA was very, very smart and knew the rover would not leave tracks on the moon so they had to use a crane to prevent making tracks on the "movie set"?? It's all just endless and very illogical.
Both sides of all of these arguments have been beat to death over the years. Surely, anyone who has made up their mind regarding what they believe the truth to be has already looked at both sides of all the arguments and will not be swayed by brief posts made here.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 19, 2016, 12:03:32 PM
E2Matrix,
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Smartmeter
shown in the tear down video can tell the difference between
a 10 amp at 120V load and a 10 amp at 240V load.
Check out the single current sense coil with only two wires coming
from it. Also note how one of the legs passes thru the Isense coil
in a direction opposite to the opposing phase.
Also note the small wires coming off the two main legs after the Isense
coil most likely for both circuit power and Vsense.
10 amps at 120V or 10 amps at 240V, how does it know?
PW
I think the small wires are for the voltage sense coil and each leg of 120v has a current coil which all work together to average power consumed. The basic concept is over a hundred years old and is a nice piece of engineering IMO. I assume in a smart meter instead of having a wheel turn from eddy currents there is some sort of chip that senses the currents. Some people think that it is less accurate in hot weather than the wheel based setup.
I knew nothing about the space program and then Apollo 8 happened. That was a truly amazing moment to live through, people all around the world were transfixed to their TV screens watching the lunar landscape pass by through the command module window. Then I followed all of the explanations for how they were going to get to the moon and even as a child I understood most of what they were saying.
In the 1990s I had to go visit Kennedy Space Center to take it all in like a kid again.
I am not religious, but this clip was a truly magical moment that those of us that are still around to remember it will never forget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X84X-PP2Ako (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X84X-PP2Ako)
This is a nice recreation in From the Earth to the Moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_NZ4rSvBCg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_NZ4rSvBCg)
This landmark achievement was the result of the sweat and inspiration of hundreds of thousands of people. It's an insult to all that they accomplished to think that it was all fake.
Quote from: e2matrix on January 19, 2016, 08:13:54 PM
I think the small wires are for the voltage sense coil and each leg of 120v has a current coil which all work together to average power consumed. The basic concept is over a hundred years old and is a nice piece of engineering IMO. I assume in a smart meter instead of having a wheel turn from eddy currents there is some sort of chip that senses the currents. Some people think that it is less accurate in hot weather than the wheel based setup.
Smartmeters are not a hundred years old. The old wheel type only charged for real power. It is readily apparent how the electronics of the Smartmeter would detect voltage (and power its electronic circuitry) thru the two small wires attached to L1 and L2 (those two small wires only being protected by the fuse on the pole transformer primary which doesn't sound up to code to me...)
However, if there were two current sense transformers, one for L1 and another for L2, all would seem fine and dandy. But again, how current (and PF) is accurately sensed using just one Isense transformer is still a bit of puzzle to me.
PW
Milehigh that fackery is even worst than that it started at pearl harbor when the Japaneses annihilated 5000 poor young defense personnel and then the trillion of wasted dollars to go to the moon not ,then to Vietnam and 911 that Mr Putin is going to let the whole world know on September 2016 that 911 was an inside job.. wake up people and smell the CAT VOMIT..
911 WAS DONE FOR A MULTIPLE OF REASONS one great America is totally broke, so they printed billions of dollars note put on boing 747 and ship to Iraq and in infect these worthless pieces of paper suddenly had value because it is in circulation in the economical blood system of this world..plus the rest of the thousand of other reasons..i will let your imagination run wild and you will always be right.
Quote from: picowatt on January 19, 2016, 08:25:18 PM
Smartmeters are not a hundred years old. The old wheel type only charged for real power. It is readily apparent how the electronics of the Smartmeter would detect voltage (and power its electronic circuitry) thru the two small wires attached to L1 and L2 (those two small wires only being protected by the fuse on the pole transformer primary which doesn't sound up to code to me...)
However, if there were two current sense transformers, one for L1 and another for L2, all would seem fine and dandy. But again, how current (and PF) is accurately sensed using just one Isense transformer is still a bit of puzzle to me.
PW
smart meters are not but the principals used are.
if you look at avalons video of the meter being taken apart, you will see the current sense coil at the top.
it has 2 heavy conductors going thru it, one going up one down, one for L1 load one for L2.
the smart meter is an electronic version of the wheel meter.
Tinman,
Have a look at this jpg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#/media/File:Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_wheel_close-up.JPG
This wheel design would gather up the lunar soil and then throw it out on the trailing edge. When stopped, the soil captured inside the mesh would settle to the bottom of the wheel. When first starting out or when moving very slowly the rover would indeed leave tracks. Most times, however, these wheels picked up and threw out so much soil they tended to cover their tracks.
From the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
"The LRVs experienced some minor problems. The rear fender extension on the Apollo 16 LRV was lost during the mission's second extra-vehicular activity (EVA) at station 8 when John Young bumped into it while going to assist Charles Duke. The dust thrown up from the wheel covered the crew, the console, and the communications equipment. High battery temperatures and resulting high power consumption ensued. No repair attempt was mentioned.
The fender extension on the Apollo 17 LRV broke when accidentally bumped by Eugene Cernan with a hammer handle. Cernan and Schmitt taped the extension back in place, but due to the dusty surfaces, the tape did not adhere and the extension was lost after about one hour of driving, causing the astronauts to be covered with dust. For their second EVA, a replacement "fender" was made with some EVA maps, duct tape, and a pair of clamps from inside the Lunar Module that were nominally intended for the moveable overhead light. This repair was later undone so that the clamps could be taken inside for the return launch. The maps were brought back to Earth and are now on display at the National Air and Space Museum. The abrasion from the dust is evident on some portions of the makeshift fender."
Cool video showing how the rover was constructed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDSYTMqyQw
The rovers, like every other aspect of Apollo, were engineering marvels.
Imagine breaking down further than your life support would sustain a walk back to the LEM.
PW
Quote from: FatBird on January 19, 2016, 01:01:48 PM
Here is something I have never seen mentioned. Since the moon has no atmosphere (just a vacuum)
WHY aren't the space suits PUFFED UP as hard as a FOOTBALL? Nobody has ever pointed that out!
.
Like everything related to Apollo, another engineering marvel with an interesting beginning, spacesuits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urnoer7w4wM
Quote from: picowatt on January 20, 2016, 04:42:18 AM
Tinman,
Have a look at this jpg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#/media/File:Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_wheel_close-up.JPG
From the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
"The LRVs experienced some minor problems. The rear fender extension on the Apollo 16 LRV was lost during the mission's second extra-vehicular activity (EVA) at station 8 when John Young bumped into it while going to assist Charles Duke. The dust thrown up from the wheel covered the crew, the console, and the communications equipment. High battery temperatures and resulting high power consumption ensued. No repair attempt was mentioned.
The fender extension on the Apollo 17 LRV broke when accidentally bumped by Eugene Cernan with a hammer handle. Cernan and Schmitt taped the extension back in place, but due to the dusty surfaces, the tape did not adhere and the extension was lost after about one hour of driving, causing the astronauts to be covered with dust. For their second EVA, a replacement "fender" was made with some EVA maps, duct tape, and a pair of clamps from inside the Lunar Module that were nominally intended for the moveable overhead light. This repair was later undone so that the clamps could be taken inside for the return launch. The maps were brought back to Earth and are now on display at the National Air and Space Museum. The abrasion from the dust is evident on some portions of the makeshift fender."
Cool video showing how the rover was constructed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDSYTMqyQw
The rovers, like every other aspect of Apollo, were engineering marvels.
Imagine breaking down further than your life support would sustain a walk back to the LEM.
PW
I know exactly how the wheels were designed and built,as i have been studying this subject for some years now.
What you need to understand PW,is that i was a true believer in the moon mission's. But since i have been in the FE community,things have changed. We are taught to (when extraordinary claims are made) look and analyze everything very carefully --by people like your self. When you do this with the information supplied by NASA in regards to the moon mission's,then you start to see things that do not add up. By the way you are going about things here,i would say that you are one of those that need to believe in the moon landing's,and all common sense and analysis on your behalf is set aside.
QuoteThis wheel design would gather up the lunar soil and then throw it out on the trailing edge. When stopped, the soil captured inside the mesh would settle to the bottom of the wheel. When first starting out or when moving very slowly the rover would indeed leave tracks. Most times, however, these wheels picked up and threw out so much soil they tended to cover their tracks.
Really.
If we go about this the scientific way,then that reasoning is flawed beyond belief. We know that the lunar surface on the light side of the moon is consistent as far as the soil go's,as there is no other environmental impact's that could cause differing soil consistencies. We also know that the rovers are close to the same area around the lunar lander,which further confirms the consistencies of the lunar surface.
Now we come to the pictures below from NASA,and in these pictures we see no such wheel track consistencies. We see the reasoning you put forth as to the !!no wheel tracks!! claim is very inconsistent with the supplied data by NASA. Using the same means of investigation as we do here,as in studying the supplied data,we can clearly see that there is something amiss here,and that that supplied data tells us without doubt that the claim is false. When we look at the pictures below,we can accurately assume that the rover track's were made at different speed's in the different pictures. Some where the rover was slowing to a halt,and some where the rover was moving at a decent speed. So from all this information,we can conclude that the reasoning you supplied as to why there is no track's is incorrect.
QuoteThe rovers, like every other aspect of Apollo, were engineering marvels.
The only reason they are considered to be !!engineering marvels!!,was because they were associated with the moon mission's. Other than that,they are nothing special,and given the over rated price tag on them,i (and many others here) could build twice the machine on half the budget.
Brad
@ PW
We know the soil/dirt/dust (what ever you like to call it) on the moon would be as dry as a pub with no beer,as we all know's what happens to water when placed in a total vacuum. NASA says the temperatures on the moon's surface also reach over 200*F in sun light. NASA also used a dry sandy environment like the desert dunes to test there lunar rover model's,as they believed that this would closely represent the lunar surface. So let's take a look at the picture below once again. Look at how well the lunar soil holds itself together,so as to leave perfect footprints and wheel track's-->have you ever seen dry sand that will do this?. Foot prints with vertical walls of dry soil that dose not collapse.
Looking at the below picture,and many others,it would seem that the soil is moist-or would have to be moist to hold the imprints made. A great experiment would be to see if you can make a perfect footprint in very dry soil/sand/dust.
Brad
@ PW
So now we take even a closer look at the lunar rover wheels.
We know the lunar surface is dry dusty like soil due to not only the vacuum,but also described as such by the astronaut's them self.
So looking at the blown up picture below(compliments of NASA them self),can you explain as to why the !!dry dusty soil!! is sticking to all parts of the rovers wheels ???. Use your known science to explain this,and also carry out your own experiments to see if you can get dry dust/soil to stick to both the vertical and under side of a wheel.-->Remember,dry dust/soil,that is void of any moisture contents at all.
Brad
Tinman,
Apparently you "need" to believe that NASA did not go the moon.
First it was the radiation, then it was the absence of rover tracks, then it is why the tracks are there when maneuvering with its 4 wheel steering, going slow, or traversing possibly different soil types, then it was why do the sharper, non-weathered particles of the lunar dust in a vacuum and less gravity clump differently than rounded, weathered dust particles here on Earth with its atmosphere and greater gravity, then it was why do those very fine dust particles clump to possibly lubricant contaminated wheels. The list will just go on and on, it never ends. It is a silly game I do not wish to play.
Yes, I believe man went to the moon, I do not "need" to believe man went to the moon, I do so based on the evidence, the science and the engineering accomplished.. It was a tremendous accomplishment that required a huge amount of science, engineering, personnel, and guts to pull off. The science and engineering required for everything related to human spaceflight was, and is, just amazing.
For you to say that you could build twice the machine on half the budget says a lot about your "beliefs". I have always enjoyed your experimentation and willingness to share, but do you seriously believe yourself to be qualified to design, engineer, and test a human spaceflight rated lunar rover? Anything rated for human spaceflight operating in the environment of space and on the lunar surface requires a great deal of science, engineering, and testing. Although there are modern components available to ease the task, you would need a team of engineers just to design your rover, and suitable clean rooms, shake and bake and vacuum facilities to build, test, and certify it.
The rover was much more than just a glorified Earth bound electric dune buggy or sand rail...
PW
We never went to the moon. End of Story. The ISS is also fake, it is actually an International Submarine Station complete with leaking helmets. Even the Mars rover is faked, it is shot on Devon Island in Canada. NASA is essentially one gigantic tax grab making Disney movies for adults. The model was so successful it was replicated around the world, recognizable by the common Vector symbol within the various space agencies logos.
The sad part is we stopped doing R&D in space travel in exchange for CGI and Zero G planes. This is a huge set back for the scientific community.
Quote from: picowatt on January 20, 2016, 08:15:48 PM
Tinman,
Anything rated for human spaceflight operating in the environment of space and on the lunar surface requires a great deal of science, engineering, and testing. Although there are modern components available to ease the task, you would need a team of engineers just to design your rover, and suitable clean rooms, shake and bake and vacuum facilities to build, test, and certify it.
The rover was much more than just a glorified Earth bound electric dune buggy or sand rail...
PW
QuoteApparently you "need" to believe that NASA did not go the moon.
No,i do not need to believe anything that the USA has done--it makes no difference what so ever to my way of living. Im an Australian--why would what the USA did or did not do have any effect on me--or why would i care if the USA put man on the moon or not. You see,i look at it from a neutral position,and like i said before-->i did once believe that man did go to the moon. But now that i am able to look at provided evidence,and make accurate judgement from that evidence,it is clear that !some!-if not all the video and pictures taken from the moon are fake. One then starts to ask--why the need to fake things like this if they really were on the moon.
QuoteFirst it was the radiation,
It's not that the radiation was a key point-it is more of-just 1 point.
I asked you to provide a link to any known data regarding the kind and amount's of radiation within the Van Allen belt's,but i received nothing. As i said--did we just send man through them,and hope for the best? ,or is there/was there accurate data back then about the radiation?-->i dont think we have that even now?.
Quotethen it was the absence of rover tracks, then it is why the tracks are there when maneuvering with its 4 wheel steering, going slow, or traversing possibly different soil types,
An extremely valid point,to which no valid answer has been given.
Quotethen it was why do the sharper, non-weathered particles of the lunar dust in a vacuum and less gravity clump differently than rounded, weathered dust particles here on Earth with its atmosphere and greater gravity,
I know of many kinds of sharp dust/sand particles here on earth that do not clump together as on the moon. The absence of an atmosphere,and less gravity would only mean less compaction of the particles,and there for less stability.
Quotethen it was why do those very fine dust particles clump to possibly lubricant contaminated wheels.
Lubricant contamination?
I will quote you on what you said a little further down
Quote: -- Anything rated for human spaceflight operating in the environment of space and on the lunar surface requires a great deal of science, engineering, and testing.
So they either have built an oil leaking machine--or they built a well engineered and tested vehicle-->which is it?.
QuoteThe list will just go on and on, it never ends. It is a silly game I do not wish to play.
This is what we do with every extra ordinary claim here--we look at everything to do with that claim--that is science and research. Those that choose not to look at the evidence provided,are those that choose to believe only in what they want to believe in.
Like i have stated before--the need to believe outweighs the need to know the truth.
QuoteYes, I believe man went to the moon, I do not "need" to believe man went to the moon, I do so based on the evidence,
As i asked TK--can you provide any solid evidence that is not supplied by NASA ?-->i am yet to see any.
QuoteIt was a tremendous accomplishment that required a huge amount of science, engineering, personnel, and guts to pull off. The science and engineering required for everything related to human spaceflight was, and is, just amazing.
Why is it amazing?. We have guys build rockets in there back yard that can reach the atmosphere ,and with a simple GoPro camera,can take better pictures than NASA ever did.
Rocket science is nothing special either--just the ejection of mass at high velocities. The calculations required to achieve getting a pay load into earth orbit may be very in depth,but not out of reach for many here. I think exploring the depths of the ocean,where far greater pressures are encountered,is a much higher achievement than space flight.
QuoteFor you to say that you could build twice the machine on half the budget says a lot about your "beliefs". I have always enjoyed your experimentation and willingness to share, but do you seriously believe yourself to be qualified to design, engineer, and test a human spaceflight rated lunar rover?
With out a doubt. You do know i am a mechanical engineer by trade-dont you?.
Lets have a look at the spec's on this special vehicle.
Rather than copy and paste the whole lot here,i will just provide the link.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
Now-the price tag for the four rover's-->and that includes the one used for !!spare parts!!,due to the cancellation of later missions.
Quote: --The original cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to Boeing (with Delco as a major sub-contractor) was for $19 million and called for delivery of the first LRV by 1 April 1971, but cost overruns led to a final cost of $38 million. :D
So thats 9.5 million dollars each rover<--are you serious ::) This is your tax dollars at work here ;)
I stand by my claim-->for 4.25 million dollars i will build twice the machine using the same materials they did. In fact,i will do it for under $1 000 000-->and i will do it on my own in under six months
Care to take me up on the bet?.
There is absolutely nothing special about the lunar rovers--nothing at all. In fact,like i said,they were really a very poor effort for the money they cost-->there was not $9 500 000 worth of vehicle there. Your average family car is better engineered than the lunar rover's. !!If!! we could get to the moon,you could drive an electric golf cart around on the moon just as well with the right batteries and wheels. In fact,rubber balloon tires would do just fine if you avoid the sharp rocks.
I am at a loss at to why you think the lunar rovers were something out of the ordinary. What they were was a big ripoff from the tax payers--along with the rest of the mission.
Brad
I have made one large error in the previous post.
I was going on the dollar value of 1969,and not present day dollar value due to inflation.
Here is todays cost of 1x lunar rover--> $61,353,174.39,__and that is for 1 lunar rover. :D
Calculated using this US inflation calculator.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Brad
QuoteI asked you to provide a link to any known data regarding the kind and amount's of radiation within the Van Allen belt's,but i received nothing.
Do you have some memory problems or is it something else? I had to deal with the same type of issue with you over and over when debating your pulse motor and it gets very frustrating.
Picowatt is an engineer's engineer. I have never gotten the vibe that you are an engineer. You really would not be able to make a lunar rover yourself. It would take something like a team of 50 engineers a few years and an ecosystem of subcontractors and support facilities to make a lunar rover. Just a wild guess that is most likely in the ballpark.
Here are some really cool videos that I have never seen. I love the way they used to do artist's renditions of scenes that looked so realistic, the full-size physical mock-ups, and the proposed scale models that they made.
Wernher von Braun explains the possibility to reach the Moon. "Man and the Moon", Dec. 28, 1955
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY
Wernher von Braun explains the possibility of traveling in space."Man in Space" March 9, 1955
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-phxCxTlzQ
This looks like an awesome YouTube channel for space aficionados.
Dan Beaumont Space Museum
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrDanBeaumont/videos
MH
With the know how available today (world wide web) and with Brads determination and
Ability.
It would not surprise me one bit that we could mount a space venture to rival early
Efforts ...on a tremendously smaller budget.
Especially with the advancements in "small" technologies ..
Radiation hardening would be the biggest issue and still is today
Which does beg some questions about men standing on a moon with no natural
Shield against enormous solar flares and such....
Why has it all stopped ..and why did Russia not continue on to the moon
In a cold war a moon base would be of tantamount importance...
Something is screwy and I believe it is these screwy things which help feed
These questions and theories,
We have made light yearr advances in science ..and the planet as a whole
Is no longer looking at the moon ??
Perhaps it is the perception of great expectations from these trips of almost 50 odd years ago
That has lead people to look much closer now
It is not in our nature to STOP exploring ..
50 years......??? No more trips by anybody ??
Not even a monkey ??
Well it may not be a monkey...
But there is definitely an elephant in the room
Quote from: tinman on January 21, 2016, 05:45:28 AM
I have made one large error in the previous post.
I was going on the dollar value of 1969,and not present day dollar value due to inflation.
Here is todays cost of 1x lunar rover--> $61,353,174.39,__and that is for 1 lunar rover. :D
Calculated using this US inflation calculator.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Brad
The error is a bit larger, I believe there was something north of a dozen rovers made and even more multiples of some parts and sub-assemblies. Some of those were used for destructive and non-destructive testing.
The actual cost to build each rover was minimal and relatively insignificant, it was the engineering, testing, and certification that was the bulk of the cost.
If you decide to build a moon rover today you would of course have the advantage of modern hardware that is available, but even more so, you would know about conditions on the lunar surface and have some actual data taken from previous operation on the moon during the Apollo missions.
But just consider some of the thermodynamic requirements. For example, what will be the minimum and maximum temperatures experienced by the wheels and drive motors? How are you going to lube the motor and wheel bearings? What lubricant will you use that will not boil off in a vacuum at the expected maximum temperature? Will you attempt to hermetically seal the bearings, which is more difficult, poses additional engineering hurdles, and may make some seals mission and life critical, or will you allow them to vent/breathe as the bearings and lubricants experience the vacuum and extreme temperature variations? How will you cool the motors as heat builds during operation? Besides being exposed to the already extreme temperatures, how much heat will you need to dissipate from the drive electronics and just exactly how will you get rid of that heat in a vacuum? What batteries will you use? How do those batteries function in a vacuum and in the temperature extremes they will experience?
Consider some of the mechanical requirements. What sort of wheel design will you use? How will you test those wheels to ensure they will not fatigue and break during operation? How many wheels/tires will you need to make for destructive and non-destructive testing? What will those test parameters be? What sort of suspension will you use? Of what design will the suspension damper be? Will the damper use oil? How will that oil perform during min/max temperature operation? How will you seal those dampers, and how will those seals perform in the environmental extremes? How will you determine and test the damper requirements when operated in the reduced gravity of the moon? How abrasive is moon dust and how will you deal with that? What sort of suspension bearings or bushings will you use? How will they handle the extreme environment? How will they handle the lunar dust?
Also, keep in mind you must meet weight, size, range and load carrying requirements, with the total weight including seats, cameras, antennas, and all electronics and cooling hardware. As well, you must engineer some simple method of containment and deployment that will allow suited astronauts to safely unload and unfold your rover.
And when you are done building it, the lives of two astronauts may depend on your rover performing as required, so you will need to certify it. You will likely want to fully instrument things like wheel and steering motors and bearings for real time monitoring of temperature and vibration analysis. You will need to monitor drive motor and battery current and have warnings and protections in place for all critical systems. You will need to analyze various failure modes and provide redundancies or bypasses that will allow some degree of limp home operation during as many failure scenarios as possible. You will also need to test everything in a suitable environmental chamber and as well perform shake and bake tests. Of course, some scientists and engineers are going to have to provide data like G forces, vibration rates, directional axes and temperature/heat loading data so you know what the parameters of those tests need to be.
For you to trivialize the engineering required to build a lunar rover only demonstrates an ignorance of the difficulties that task presents, the research and engineering required, and the marvel of engineering the lunar rovers truly were, particularly given the era in which they were built.
As I have previously stated, I have always enjoyed your experimentation and willingness to share, but as of late, a cynicism towards scientists and engineers has crept within your soul that clouds your vision and closes your mind.
PW
QuotePerhaps it is the perception of great expectations from these trips of almost 50 odd years ago
That has lead people to look much closer now
In late 2014 you were pushing GDS like it was the next big thing. You defended them and wanted to arrange for a test.
This is the intelligence that I pulled up on them from that time period just the other day:
<<<<
Anyway I decided to go in, the building was open. This is what I saw:
-The cleanest emptiest office space I have ever seen.
-a girl working on a laptop at a solitary desk.
No papers, files, filing cabinets, books etc etc to suggest any kind of business operations-I went in under the guise of renting storage space inquiring about the sign out front. I really wasn't prepared as I stopped in on a whim.
-She took me around the corner to another office where low and behold
Mr Greg Potter himself (definitely the guy in the video)
was sitting at a desk in a another completely empty office having his lunch. Again COMPLETELY empty, just a desk
>>>>
You are the one with the problem of great expectations and failing to evaluate situations properly. You are the one that needs to look more closely at things.
For me, I am not perfect by all means but my batting average is better than yours. No matter how you look at it, developing a new moon rover would be a huge endeavour. It makes me think about one person around here saying that he was going to put his own home-made e-Cat in his basement. I told him he was nuts if he thought that he could build his own alleged nuclear reactor by himself. "Alleged" being the key term because the giant robotic e-Cat factory is never to be seen.
Quote from: tinman on January 21, 2016, 05:45:28 AM
I have made one large error in the previous post.
I was going on the dollar value of 1969,and not present day dollar value due to inflation.
Here is todays cost of 1x lunar rover--> $61,353,174.39,__and that is for 1 lunar rover. :D
Calculated using this US inflation calculator.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Brad
The cost of going to and operating in space, although still expensive, has come down significantly since the days of the space race. Current cost is something like $10K per pound, and scientists and engineers are working to reduce that to $100's or less. There are even private companies intending to provide commercial rides to near orbit or possibly low orbit.
The largest reason for these cost reductions is that engineers today have a wealth of data and experience to draw from. That data and experience represents a tremendous amount of previous development and engineering cost. New designs can draw form the weaknesses and strengths of previous designs. One doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, with every launch vehicle and payload design. Developments during the space race paid for a lot of engineering that bled over into the defense related and private sectors, and formed the beginning of many aerospace and consumer related companies that develop and produce today's modern technology.
Today, one could just buy a rad hardened spaceflight certified computer and solid state inertial guidance system from an aerospace company and not need to use spinning gyros and little old ladies weaving rope memory. I'm sure that a modern spaceflight rated computer will cost considerably, but that cost would likely pale in comparison to what it cost even in 1960 dollars to design and build the flight computer and its rope memory, the first ever software for the task at hand, and the inertial guidance system (the lunar rover had to have a navigation/guidance system as well).
You are way too quick to dismiss and omit the value in today's dollars of all that previous research and engineering of the "unknown".
Could a better, lower cost lunar rover be built today? Of course it could. Think about why that is. Most of the science and data collection, engineering development, component testing, and the cost to develop modern day, far superior, materials and subsystems has already been paid for.
PW
MH
We have been here before and I am quite certain you must really believe this nonsense.
I approached Mr Potter on several occasions and offered him a 100% no charge no strings attached
Black box investigation by the best team money could buy
At no charge whatsoever.
As time passed it became obvious he was not interested.
If he called me today , the offer would stand.
If you persieve this offer to investigate a claim as an indorsement ...well I honestly am at a loss for nice words
So I will bite my lip and let your readers judge .
I would posture the position that your endless public comments about GDS are much more likely to assist him
In his mysterious claims in an investment community wrought with similar .......
It is said in advertising that there is no such thing as bad advertising..
Your advertising at this point is pure conjecture...
Once that changes and you actually have facts ...well then its a different story altogether .
Your investigation would serve you much better privately if you are truly looking to not be culpable
In some poor soul getting within grasp of what you feel to be a con.
Just an observation from my personal life experience
But back to the off topic ...topic at hand
The kids smell a rat
50 years ??? And dropped like a hot potatoe during a global quest for world domination
During the cold war ??
The elephant is making a Rucus in the room ...
Respectfully
Chet
Quote from: picowatt on January 21, 2016, 01:08:53 PM
The cost of going to and operating in space, although still expensive, has come down significantly since the days of the space race. Current cost is something like $10K per pound, and scientists and engineers are working to reduce that to $100's or less. There are even private companies intending to provide commercial rides to near orbit or possibly low orbit.
I agree the cost of making fake movies of astronauts gallivanting around in space has gone down considerably. They are even starting to explore the concept of adding stars to the background when they do their fake space walks in a swimming pool at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab.
I can not believe a group of people who are so intelligent as well as skeptical that have managed to analyze every proposal and prove they faked overunity, could be so gullible that they fall for NASA and other space agencies (both public and private) fantasy ventures in outer space. It is complete and utter garbage and is comparable only with children believing in Santa Clause, Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.
Do your own research. Why are there no stars visible in any space walks, ebb and flow apparently mapped every square inch of the moon at a closer range then satellites circle the earth with modern equipment but no video or photo's of our lunar landing site ?
You have been lied to and you continue to be lied to. If this was North Korea who was making all of these wonderful claims the level of scrutiny would be high but the US government proclaims they walk on the moon and astronauts continually space walk around the ISS in suits that protect against extreme temperatures and the vacuum of space, we simply ignore a mountain of evidence that proves beyond any doubt that our entire space program is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Do your own research stop believing everything governments and corporations tell you. Remember Snowden
Quote from: ramset on January 21, 2016, 01:32:42 PM
The kids smell a rat
50 years ??? And dropped like a hot potatoe during a global quest for world domination
During the cold war ??
The elephant is making a Rucus in the room ...Respectfully
In many ways I agree.
I do indeed believe we went to the moon. Keep in mind, however, that early spaceflight was only a show of force. Most early spacecraft were merely simple payloads placed atop what was otherwise an ICBM.
I was there during Sputnik. The fear levels were similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Sending a man to the moon was a competition. No cost was spared. Supposedly, it was eventually realized that going to the moon was very cool and something you could brag about, but that money and time spent did little in terms of building a national defense or providing a strategic advantage. Would you launch a missile from the moon and give your enemy days to see it coming? A fortune was spent on Apollo, and when the financial plug was pulled, a lot of engineers, technicians, etc. lost their jobs.
But, I partially agree with you. Here we are talking about going to Mars. It seems quite sensible to instead get really good at living only 2.5 days away on the moon first. China is planning to send men to the moon, some private companies have discussed doing so for profit as well, possibly mining for minerals or He3.
Recent discoveries indicate the presence of large bore lava tubes on the moon. These could have habitats placed within them. Portions of these lava tubes could eventually be walled up and sealed off to allow an atmosphere to be maintained. Being under the surface, there would be less temperature extremes and protection from radiation and the constant rain of micro-meteorites (and maybe a a few large ones as well...).
Although the environment of the moon is, in many ways, more difficult to deal with than it would be to live on Mars, being so close would allow humans to get really good at human spaceflight with help from Earth only 2.5 days away.
However, in today's political and economic environment, I don't see an International Moon Base happening in the near future. What we have done since the space race, the wars fought, etc, has truly been a travesty to humanity, and makes people of my generation wonder, "where's my jet-pack?"
And always remember to just "duck and cover"...
PW
PW
I read recently the Chinese could find no evidence of our lunar modules ?
I have to say i have been jousting with Brad over this moon thing for a while
However it became apparent to both of us in a very intrusive way that this world is being run by
Lying scum...with an extremely self serving agenda...Global warming my buttock..
These guys could care less.
So I am just paying attention now....there are some smart fellows asking smart question a bout
This.
One very intriguing position was that we went ssoo far down the rabbit hole ,that when they
Crunched the numbers (and couldn't get the LEM to safely land in the only attempt they ever made )
Instead of risking worldwide humiliation
Somebody called for plan B ....
The only thing that gives me credence to this opinion is the history or lack there of from the last
50 years
Oh and the comment was made about bringing an 800 lb dune buggy on a mission which might rely
On a few grams of weight between leaving a man on the moon staring back at planet earth.
Also the lack of thruster blast under the LEM and its pristine condition after what most likely
Would have been a dust storm blast from hell landing.
The module should have looked like pig pen after a dust up.
Instead it looked like ??
I'm just making observations and I am doing it from a place of anger..
Not always the best for a clear mind however
Something is very fishy about the last 50 years and as you say what's wrong with playing close to home ?
Respectfully
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 21, 2016, 02:53:18 PM
PW
I read recently the Chinese could find no evidence of our lunar modules ?
I have to say i have been jousting with Brad over this moon thing for a while
However it became apparent to both of us in a very intrusive way that this world is being run by
Lying scum...with an extremely self serving agenda...Global warming my buttock..
These guys could care less.
So I am just paying attention now....there are some smart fellows asking smart question a bout
This.
One very intriguing position was that we went ssoo far down the rabbit hole ,that when they
Crunched the numbers (and couldn't get the LEM to safely land in the only attempt they ever made )
Instead of risking worldwide humiliation
Somebody called for plan B ....
The only thing that gives me credence to this opinion is the history or lack there of from the last
50 years
Oh and the comment was made about bringing an 800 lb dune buggy on a mission which might rely
On a few grams of weight between leaving a man on the moon staring back at planet earth.
Also the lack of thruster blast under the LEM and its pristine condition after what most likely
Would have been a dust storm blast from hell landing.
The module should have looked like pig pen after a dust up.
Instead it looked like ??
So the LRO images are fake as well? The Chinese imaging will eventually improve.
Of course, even if the LEM's, rovers, science expeiments, cameras, or even boot prints, are eventually imaged in sufficient resolution and/or otherwise unequivocally proven to exist on the Moon, there will be those that say that all that equipment and any boot prints were placed there more recently to cover up the big lie. There is just no end to it. NASA's recent announcement that the boot prints won't last forever due to the constant rain of micrometeorites, and requests to the UN that the lunar landing sites be designated and preserved as historic landmarks or monuments with some sort of minimum radius keep out zone, will only further feed the fanciful fires of the non-believers.
Of course I, as well, have a lot of questions about motivations, what is really going on in the world, and what questions any secret projects may have already answered, but did men actually go to the moon? I believe so.
PW
PW
I'M personally not even on that fence yet,everything around this part of the world
Is here due to the space program and the scquillions it pumped into the local economys
But there is something odd about the moon and the lack of exploration there.
Maybe Brad should start small ,send a robot to one of the landing sites ?
See the evidence and gain some experience (space exploration)
As a matter of fact...!!!!
I betya there are enuff naysayers and america haters globally to finance such an endevour
In a heart beat...
We could absolutely muster the talent for such an open source project
Besides having a good look at the back side of the moon
We could ping it and see if it rings
We could look back and take a picture of the globe ,for flat earthers
gotta market to the whole crowd ??
Just one mans opinion
Quote from: ramset on January 21, 2016, 03:21:54 PM
PW
I'M personally not even on that fence yet,everything around this part of the world
Is here due to the space program and the scquillions it pumped into the local economys
But there is something odd about the moon and the lack of exploration there.
Maybe Brad should start small ,send a robot to one of the landing sites ?
See the evidence and gain some experience (space exploration)
As a matter of fact...!!!!
I betya there are enuff naysayers and america haters globally to finance such an endevour
In a heart beat...
We could absolutely muster the talent for such an open source project
Besides having a good look at the back side of the moon
We could ping it and see if it rings
We could look back and take a picture of the globe ,for flat earthers
gotta market to the whole crowd ??
Just one mans opinion
Although I have some degree of respect for Tinman, I won't be holding my breath waiting for data from his lunar rover missions.
Even with state funding, historically, it has been no easy task...
But regarding this comment of yours:
QuoteBut there is something odd about the moon and the lack of exploration there.
I would, for the most part, agree with you. It does seem a bit odd...
But then there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program#Bush_administration
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm
And just 'cause its interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_manned_lunar_programs
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on January 21, 2016, 09:34:31 AM
QuoteDo you have some memory problems or is it something else? I had to deal with the same type of issue with you over and over when debating your pulse motor and it gets very frustrating.
And it was a debate you lost in the end,along with some very !self acclaimed! smart guy's.
QuotePicowatt is an engineer's engineer. I have never gotten the vibe that you are an engineer.
There are active engineer's,and passive engineer's.
I am an active mechanical engineer.
Do you know the difference between the two MH?-->im guessing not.
QuoteYou really would not be able to make a lunar rover yourself.
And you know this how?.
You know very little about me,and you have based your judgement only on what you have seen me do-->just like you have based your judgement on the moon landings by what NASA has shown you.
The difference being--one you need to believe in,and the other you need not to believe in. You make me laugh MH-->you have just made two opposite judgement's on two different thing's,based around what you have been shown or seen so far lol.
QuoteIt would take something like a team of 50 engineers a few years and an ecosystem of subcontractors and support facilities to make a lunar rover. Just a wild guess that is most likely in the ballpark.
Absolute rubbish.
You think all this is needed just because the temperature may reach 150*C,and that the vehicle will be operating in a vacuum?.
You have been sucked in to the world of bullshit,and that is very obvious now.
Brad
Here is a starter video for those who have not seen it.
A funny thing happened on the way to the moon.
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4?t=493
Or my favorite one swear on the bible you walked on the moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbpWaDL4Zc
Quote from: picowatt on January 21, 2016, 11:04:19 AM
The error is a bit larger, I believe there was something north of a dozen rovers made and even more multiples of some parts and sub-assemblies. Some of those were used for destructive and non-destructive testing.
The actual cost to build each rover was minimal and relatively insignificant, it was the engineering, testing, and certification that was the bulk of the cost.
If you decide to build a moon rover today you would of course have the advantage of modern hardware that is available, but even more so, you would know about conditions on the lunar surface and have some actual data taken from previous operation on the moon during the Apollo missions.
But just consider some of the thermodynamic requirements. For example, what will be the minimum and maximum temperatures experienced by the wheels and drive motors? How are you going to lube the motor and wheel bearings? What lubricant will you use that will not boil off in a vacuum at the expected maximum temperature? Will you attempt to hermetically seal the bearings, which is more difficult, poses additional engineering hurdles, and may make some seals mission and life critical, or will you allow them to vent/breathe as the bearings and lubricants experience the vacuum and extreme temperature variations? How will you cool the motors as heat builds during operation? Besides being exposed to the already extreme temperatures, how much heat will you need to dissipate from the drive electronics and just exactly how will you get rid of that heat in a vacuum? What batteries will you use? How do those batteries function in a vacuum and in the temperature extremes they will experience?
Consider some of the mechanical requirements. What sort of wheel design will you use? How will you test those wheels to ensure they will not fatigue and break during operation? How many wheels/tires will you need to make for destructive and non-destructive testing? What will those test parameters be? What sort of suspension will you use? Of what design will the suspension damper be? Will the damper use oil? How will that oil perform during min/max temperature operation? How will you seal those dampers, and how will those seals perform in the environmental extremes? How will you determine and test the damper requirements when operated in the reduced gravity of the moon? How abrasive is moon dust and how will you deal with that? What sort of suspension bearings or bushings will you use? How will they handle the extreme environment? How will they handle the lunar dust?
Also, keep in mind you must meet weight, size, range and load carrying requirements, with the total weight including seats, cameras, antennas, and all electronics and cooling hardware. As well, you must engineer some simple method of containment and deployment that will allow suited astronauts to safely unload and unfold your rover.
And when you are done building it, the lives of two astronauts may depend on your rover performing as required, so you will need to certify it. You will likely want to fully instrument things like wheel and steering motors and bearings for real time monitoring of temperature and vibration analysis. You will need to monitor drive motor and battery current and have warnings and protections in place for all critical systems. You will need to analyze various failure modes and provide redundancies or bypasses that will allow some degree of limp home operation during as many failure scenarios as possible. You will also need to test everything in a suitable environmental chamber and as well perform shake and bake tests. Of course, some scientists and engineers are going to have to provide data like G forces, vibration rates, directional axes and temperature/heat loading data so you know what the parameters of those tests need to be.
For you to trivialize the engineering required to build a lunar rover only demonstrates an ignorance of the difficulties that task presents, the research and engineering required, and the marvel of engineering the lunar rovers truly were, particularly given the era in which they were built.
As I have previously stated, I have always enjoyed your experimentation and willingness to share, but as of late, a cynicism towards scientists and engineers has crept within your soul that clouds your vision and closes your mind.
PW
A lovely long post PW,and you have made it look like building a lunar rover would be an enormous feat. But this is where people start to get fooled into believing that the cost's are justified. Every question you have asked in regards as to !how or what! is very basic stuff,and i will take the time tonight when i finish work, to answer every question you asked. But let's have a look at a couple of them right now,so as you start to see that it really is not as difficult as you are trying to make it out to be. If you are an engineer as MH claim's,then the questions you have asked,you should be able to answer your self.
1-How are you going to lube the motor and wheel bearings?
As i have worked in the the dairy construction industry for many years,and been the designer and installer of high end vacuum system's of milking machine's,i can tell you right now that there need not be anything special about bearings or motors that operate in high vacuum and high temperature environment. It is all about pressure differentials,and making sure that there is no pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bearing's. When this is done,then no lubricant will flow out of the bearings. Why do you believe that there is a difference between a bearing running in 1 atmosphere as they do here on earth,and the vacuum of space?. Bearings self equalize,if they did not,then they would blow all the lubricant out when they heated up,and the air inside them expanded--but as we know,they do not do this. So to answer your question,we simply use good quality bearings. We can test this quit accurately in a vacuum chamber,but im sure (being the engineer that MH claims you are)that this will not be needed.
2-Of what design will the suspension damper be.
Funny thing you should ask this question,as suspension is exactly what i do for a living these days.
Do you think that the shock absorber has to be anything special?--if so,why?
Think about pressure differentials again,and think about the pressure differentials between the inside and outside that shock absorber see's when in an off road vehicle going at speed over rough terrain. The shock absorber-or damper as you call it,is already designed to cope with extreme pressure differentials. Being that the vehicle will weigh 1/6th of that that it would here on earth,and the lunar terrain is an unknown,then i would use a negative up-positive down adjustable shock absorber. With a simple twist of a knob,the astronaut's can then adjust the damper rate of the shockie to suit the terrain of the lunar surface. If we are to stick with 60's tech,then we can use the design of old,and run the twist cables right up to the control panel of the lunar rover,so as the astronauts can adjust the damper rate on the fly. Did the lunar rovers take this into consideration?-did they have adjustable damper rate's,so as they could adjust the shock absorbers to suit !the yet to be known! lunar surface?-->i dont think so.How did they know the dampers would be suited to the lunar terrain if they were yet to find out what that terrain was?. Like i said,i could build twice the machine on half the budget.
I will answer the rest of your questions tonight.
Brad
Hi Tin man and Ram, some one sent me this link, i think you should cast your eyes over it !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISUnX--Pok
Quote from: tinman on January 21, 2016, 06:25:54 PM
A lovely long post PW,and you have made it look like building a lunar rover would be an enormous feat. But this is where people start to get fooled into believing that the cost's are justified. Every question you have asked in regards as to !how or what! is very basic stuff,and i will take the time tonight when i finish work, to answer every question you asked. But let's have a look at a couple of them right now,so as you start to see that it really is not as difficult as you are trying to make it out to be. If you are an engineer as MH claim's,then the questions you have asked,you should be able to answer your self.
1-How are you going to lube the motor and wheel bearings?
As i have worked in the the dairy construction industry for many years,and been the designer and installer of high end vacuum system's of milking machine's,i can tell you right now that there need not be anything special about bearings or motors that operate in high vacuum and high temperature environment. It is all about pressure differentials,and making sure that there is no pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bearing's. When this is done,then no lubricant will flow out of the bearings. Why do you believe that there is a difference between a bearing running in 1 atmosphere as they do here on earth,and the vacuum of space?. Bearings self equalize,if they did not,then they would blow all the lubricant out when they heated up,and the air inside them expanded--but as we know,they do not do this. So to answer your question,we simply use good quality bearings. We can test this quit accurately in a vacuum chamber,but im sure (being the engineer that MH claims you are)that this will not be needed.
2-Of what design will the suspension damper be.
Funny thing you should ask this question,as suspension is exactly what i do for a living these days.
Do you think that the shock absorber has to be anything special?--if so,why?
Think about pressure differentials again,and think about the pressure differentials between the inside and outside that shock absorber see's when in an off road vehicle going at speed over rough terrain. The shock absorber-or damper as you call it,is already designed to cope with extreme pressure differentials. Being that the vehicle will weigh 1/6th of that that it would here on earth,and the lunar terrain is an unknown,then i would use a negative up-positive down adjustable shock absorber. With a simple twist of a knob,the astronaut's can then adjust the damper rate of the shockie to suit the terrain of the lunar surface. If we are to stick with 60's tech,then we can use the design of old,and run the twist cables right up to the control panel of the lunar rover,so as the astronauts can adjust the damper rate on the fly. Did the lunar rovers take this into consideration?-did they have adjustable damper rate's,so as they could adjust the shock absorbers to suit !the yet to be known! lunar surface?-->i dont think so.How did they know the dampers would be suited to the lunar terrain if they were yet to find out what that terrain was?. Like i said,i could build twice the machine on half the budget.
I will answer the rest of your questions tonight.
Brad
Tinman,
Don't bother, the questions were rhetorical. It seems rather apparent that you have never done any design work for life critical systems or flight/spaceflight rated systems. If you believe human spaceflight is such a piece of cake, perhaps you should consider consulting for, or at least setting straight, the likes of Elon Musk or Sir Richard. That you think it is so easy and a bunch of "rubbish" borders on delusions of grandeur.
How do you even know what the max temperature will be? Are you using the lunar surface temp with its given thermal reflection, absorption, and conduction characteristics or will you be making your own thermodynamic modeling to determine what the actual Tmax will be when parked in the sun or driving around dissipating power? How are you going to cool components and shed waste heat from motoring and braking? How hot are your motors actually going to get? Will you be starting from scratch and doing your own designs and environmental testing or will you be relying on the previous work of others? Again, these are just rhetorical questions attempting to describe just a very few of the questions that must be addressed by engineers designing a lunar rover..
Consider the amount of R&D and testing just to make something as mundane as an explosive bolt. These bolts must synchronously separate when commanded, never separate when not commanded, fracture in a predetermined way and not damage critical structures with unexpected shrapnel. One misfire could completely destroy a a very expensive spacecraft and/or kill all on board. Yet explosive bolts are common place in spaceflight.
I would not want to venture a guess at the number of scientists, chemists, metallurgists, engineers, technicians and financial costs associated with designing and producing such a "lowly component", but I am sure there was a great deal of all involved.
PW
Quote from: tinman on January 21, 2016, 06:25:54 PM
Bearings self equalize,if they did not,then they would blow all the lubricant out when they heated up,and the air inside them expanded--but as we know,they do not do this. So to answer your question,we simply use good quality bearings. We can test this quit accurately in a vacuum chamber,but im sure (being the engineer that MH claims you are)that this will not be needed.
Yeah right, presumably off the shelf, good quality bearings with no well engineered testing criteria required for a bearing to be launched into outer space and used in a lunar environment. That will surely go very well. If the G forces, vibration and rapid pressure change during the launch sequence doesn't blow the seals off, will the lubricant used boil off when exposed to the temperature extremes and vacuum of the lunar surface?
Imagine if just one seal blows during launch or fails in use and becomes contaminated with dust, locks up, and strands the rover, possibly causing the death of two astronauts. This possibility is why everything must be tested at and beyond the environmental extremes within which any system will operate, affectionately referred to as "shake and bake".
Any life-critical or flight/spaceflight related designs must be fully tested to be certified. Merely assuming something will probably work OK is not allowed. Many systems are tested to the point of failure. Most certifications even require a report from a statistician detailing the mathematical probabilities of a failure of individual components or complete systems over a given life cycle (I have a pretty funny story regarding statisticians, but it is probably not suitable for the internet).
PW
"First and foremost is just the fact that the dust just sticks to everything," said Jasper Halekas, a research physicist at University of California, Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory in Berkeley, California.
From gauge dials, helmet sun shades to spacesuits and tools, the "stick-to-itness" of dust during the Apollo missions proved to be a noteworthy problem, Halekas reported. Most amusingly, he added, even the vacuum cleaner that was designed to clean off the dust clogged down and jammed.
... Although the lunar environment is often considered to be essentially static, Halekas and his fellow researchers reported at the workshop that, in fact, it is very electrically active.
The surface of the Moon charges in response to currents incident on its surface, and is exposed to a variety of different charging environments during its orbit around the Earth. Those charging currents span several orders of magnitude, he said.
Dust adhesion is likely increased by the angular barbed shapes of lunar dust, found to quickly and effectively coat all surfaces it comes into contact with. Additionally, that clinging is possibly due to electrostatic charging, Halekas explained.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15607792/#.VqGeBVJrNpM
Quote from: Magluvin on January 17, 2016, 06:11:17 PM
Brads question was is it electrons in motion that produces the magnetic field of a magnet.
Could you elaborate on that? ;)
Mags
an atom is an LRC circuit... the proton has an inductance. :)
The "magnetic moment" induces an electromagnetic field as well as a purely magnetic one, proportional to the electrons' energy and its' velocity.
and the permeability of a proton * the number of protons in the atom.
the magnitude of this moment will depend on how many electrons are aligned in a single plane, and in which shell these electrons orbit.
an element like iron, only the outer shells will align.
Something like neodymium compounds, or samarium, more shells can be aligned in the magnetizing plane. This allows for a greater degree of
magnetization per mass of magnetic material. i.e. - smaller, stronger magnets.
new research into nanomagnets, has shown that tiny chains of monoatomic magnets, can almost completely align all electron shells of certain elements. allowing for the greatest magnetic intensities ever measured (albeit in a very tiny space).
@ Tinman
The lunar landing conspiracies were created to bring doubt to the validity of the event.
This distracts the general populous from the reality of the U.S.A.F. base that's been on the moons horizon for
the past 40 yrs....
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 22, 2016, 01:36:18 AM
@ Tinman
The lunar landing conspiracies were created to bring doubt to the validity of the event.
This distracts the general populous from the reality of the U.S.A.F. base that's been on the moons horizon for
the past 40 yrs....
The Lunar landing conspiracies were created because NASA made this crap up. They haven't even flown to the moon let alone walked on it and as for making it back, this is completely implausible even today. And no the the U.S.A.F does not have a base on the moon. Why does everyone believe the US department of defense has all this super secret technology. If they did they would have used it years ago take over the entire planet instead of funding local rebels to destabilize various military groups in an effort to overthrow their governments.
Quote from: avalon on January 17, 2016, 08:35:44 PM
Mystery solved (sort of...)
OK, here is the result of my playing with the device and the house meter.
My house is connected to the utility through a digital smart meter. My meter looks like the picture attached to this post except that it is made by Landis & Gyr.
I do not know how old the meter is (it looks relatively new) but should've worked just fine, all considering. However, it has the same design fault as my dumb Kill-A-Watt device. Under certain conditions it does not work properly.
Yes, there is still power consumption but the meter doesn't want to know about it.
My next (and rather obvious move) was to go to a friend's house where the meter is still an old winding type. No pleasant surprises there. It shows some power consumption the moment my device is plugged in.
We also tried a different digital meter (GE, bi-directional) which worked just fine and showed true consumption.
After some digging I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQdeLQqaStA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQdeLQqaStA) which shows the tear down of a smart meter. After watching the video and some additional experimenting I think I know the answer.
So, is my device consuming power? Sadly, yes. It does.
The smart meter doesn't register the consumption because it senses the current on the hot sides only. My device, however, once tuned to the resonance frequency of the transformer, draws the power on the ground side hence bypassing the sensor.
That bypassing is possible due to yet another side effect which I am not going to discuss in details as it will lead to replications of this cheating device.
(If you are unfamiliar with the US power distribution, 2 hot sides (220V AC 60HZ)are coming down from the pole. Next the hot sides are distributed evenly to level-out the load bringing 120V AC to end consumer.)
I am not going into the details of the ferroresonance phenomenon here, as I am sure you've tried it. If not, here is a good read:
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/4/9/1301/pdf (http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/4/9/1301/pdf)
http://www.powerqualityworld.com/2011/04/constant-voltage-ferroresonant.html (http://www.powerqualityworld.com/2011/04/constant-voltage-ferroresonant.html)
Next obvious step was to try and change the resonant frequency and see what happens. Sure enough getting away from the critical point brought back proper meter functioning. Kill-A-Watt, however, remained dumb no matter what I tried.
BTW, my playing with resonant frequencies resulted to two additional events: 1/ I burnt down the transformer by accidentally disconnecting one of the secondaries 2/ I had to make another transformer in order to continue my experiments.
So, sleep well tonight. OU is still not here.
~A
If the Utility company there self, cannot measure with the help of there own balcony what they deliver to us, than is all free till proven for me and also by there own meter!
They say they deliver 50hz, we don't use 50hz there so called product but another AC! ;-))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvbMSUx5CSI
Make a Energy or Heat-Pump working in RV style:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AkApUyOcEg
Please call me a bandit, beside US, I will always be smaller one with there taxes!
Yes, sleep well!