Has the field of electrical engineering hidden the secret of capacitors?
My work in:
(1) ECAT, Energy Conversion by Articulated Transfer
(2) CRE, Charge Recycled Electrolyzer
(3) ECRAT, Electrial Charge Recovery by Articulated Transfer
Has shown by verification that Charge can be used over in a properly designed circuit. This fact allows for the reduction of power recover in many circuits of Pout/Pin > 180%.
So why is it impossible to market this technology in the US?
The answer is total economic collapse, it is not possible to offer a system that will remove each person from the grid. The overall reduction in employed, the reduced collection of energy taxes and the loss of control, prevents the offering of any technology that will solve our energy problems until those in control are able to install a structure that will guarantee there income and control.
So what can be done?
Grass roots installation, but what about the thief, the person that will steal open source information and turn it into profit?
Guess it just will not happen any time soon, right?
Good to read what seems to be a good legitimate post here.
I have studied the electric field for a long time and time after time I have concluded it is true free energy.? I am not a follower of OU but have stated that it may be possible on a quantum level.? To date I cannot see any flaw in mental simulations of Electric waves.? I am confident that if and when a computer simulation is written that it would reveal OU in the Electric wave.
One reason I have not seriously followed through building a FE machine based on the electric wave is because I am bother by one thing.? That is, energy is apparently created from nothing.? From what I've seen, it seems nature has a beautiful way of balancing these electric waves, but it is man made Scalar machines that I am concerned about.? A world filled with machines that create energy could be a scary place.? I would not want to imagine a world where 7 billion people can create as much free energy as they wish.? In other words, this planet would heat up real fast.
I am nearly 100% convinced that Tesla's Longitudinal Scalar waves are Electric waves.? I am intrigued at how well the science community or someone has suppressed the electric wave.? It exists in their equations yet but a very few even know these Electric waves exist.? It is clearly shown in all antenna analysis programs using the NEC engine.? For example, if memory holds true, then a 10GHz dipole generates 17,000 times more traverse EM waves at a distance of 10 meters than it does Electric waves.? The EM waves travel parallel to the current where as the Electric waves travel parallel and away from the current.? I am not referring to the electric potential created by the EM, but rather a pure Electric field that has no magnetic component.? The Electric wave travels out from the tips of the dipole.? On this axis there is no magnetic field.? The EM wave cancels out as it travels through matter.? To date I know of no natural material that would cancel the Electric wave.? I believe that is why Tesla was so interested in ground waves since the Electric wave attenuates at a lower rate through ground than it does through so-called empty space.? On the other hand, the EM wave power attenuates at a rate of 1/r^2, but the Electric wave attenuates at a rate of 1/r^3.? So the EM wave has longer arms figuratively speaking.? Also, the EM wave doubles in intensity, relative to the Electric wave, as the frequency doubles.
Before I would consider seriously following through this type of research I would need an answer to the following.? How could we keep the planet cool?
At present the only type of technology I would release to the public is an energy mover.
Sincerely,
Paul
Hi Ron,
all will be worked out by the communities.
Look at the Linux success.
As the inventor you will be able to make
much more money by giving it away into the public by being famous, etc..
than you will ever get, if you patent it and the patent
will be bought off and locked away...
Regards, Stefan
Quote from: PaulLowrance on May 11, 2005, 07:04:49 PM
For example, if memory holds true, then a 10GHz dipole generates 17,000 times more traverse EM waves at a distance of 10 meters than it does Electric waves.
I designed an antenna that would generate more Electric waves than EM waves, but before I would reveal it I still would need to know the answer to my question.
Anyone who wishes to play with the Electric & EM waves may try the free public domain 4nec2 program ->
http://www.si-list.org/swindex2.html
Paul
ECRAT will be available in a modified LED camping light. A currently produced light is being purchased and the ECRAT circuit is being added to the light which extends it operation by over 150% from a single set of batteries. ECRAT is not an OU device, the circuit uses an ignored fact about capacitors and charge. One of my test systems was driven by a 9V Energizer battery with a 624 mAh rating. The lamp was able to sustain a output of 35mA into 2X LEDS for over 25 hours before the light level decreased to a point of being considered non-usable. The systems will be made availabel through a company being formed at this time. "Articulated Energies".
ECRAT is able to offer the same reduction of power from AC driven circuits and produce a minimal distortion to the resulting 60hz. ECRAT will offer a viable way to cut power cost in the near term and may present additional gain in the not so distant future.
For those that may have interest, all ECRAT products will be 100% money back offering. I have insured that this will be the norm and all orders will be via credit card so the purchase can be protested should someone disagree with the advertized specifications.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 11, 2005, 07:47:54 PM
ECRAT is not an OU device, the circuit uses an ignored fact about capacitors and charge.
Is it free energy?
Quote from: drstiffler on May 11, 2005, 07:47:54 PM
One of my test systems was driven by a 9V Energizer battery with a 624 mAh rating. The lamp was able to sustain a output of 35mA into 2X LEDS for over 25 hours before the light level decreased to a point of being considered non-usable.
How is that free energy? A 624 mAH battery should get at minimum 18 hours of life at 35mA. The AH rating is simply a recommendation and by no means a maximum. 25 hours does not seem unreasonable. In fact, 50 hours may even be possible given the correct electronics to extract the energy from the battery.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 11, 2005, 07:47:54 PM
For those that may have interest, all ECRAT products will be 100% money back offering. I have insured that this will be the norm and all orders will be via credit card so the purchase can be protested should someone disagree with the advertized specifications.
I don't think you'll be selling much unless you have the smoking gun, which is a machine that recirculates enough extra energy to self sustain itself forever or until the machine breaks.
Paul
I'd guess that 2 or 3 white or blue LEDs in series can run directy on 9V ( I run these LEDs singly on 3 NiMH batteries in series).
Ambient heat recyclers will allow lots of energy use without changing the planet's temperature.
Most of the concern about Global Warming is because CO2 produced by burning fuels causes the atmosphere to absorb more heat from the sun.
Aloha, Charlie
This ECRAT would be good in combination with the
watercells batteries.
This could boost their power !
Regards, Stefan.
To clarify my post on a test ECRAT and its operation. My post stated 35mA with 2X LEDS, what this means is that two white leds, each drawing and initial current of 35mA each, for a combined 70mA.
For those wishing to see the discharge curves of a Energizer #522, I would refer you to www.energizer.com
When a battery producer states a battery has a capacity of e.g., 600mA, what one might incorrectly assume is that this battery can supply 600ma for 1 hour or 60mA for 10 hours. This is not the case for the 522 for example.Battery producers use a standard method in the rating of batteries. They normally test the discharge over a 20 hour period at a discharge rate of 5% of the assumed capacity. Battery eff. is different at different discharge rates and discharge periods, (is the battery allowed to rest between cycles.
For those that just will refuse to look or can not understand the charts, the 522 as stated by the maker with a constant discharge of 70mA will drop to between 4.9-5.4V after 10 hours.
To answer another question raised; Is this free energy? Let me answer it this way with an example, during one cycle we consume 1 watt (in white light & heat) from the power source, during the next cycle the power source is disconnected from the circuit and we consume 0.8 watt (in white light and heat. The input cycle of a sample ECRAT is 5.5mS and the discharge cycle is 7.75mS.
So is it free? Of course not, you need an ECRAT circuit, an initial battery that does become expended over its use, but you will obtain additional capacity from that battery with ECRAT over what you can get from a constant service to load connection.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 09:28:21 AM
To clarify my post on a test ECRAT and its operation. My post stated 35mA with 2X LEDS, what this means is that two white leds, each drawing and initial current of 35mA each, for a combined 70mA.
This is nice but in the science community it is very inconclusive. What would get my attention is if you could provide the following data. Measure the voltage across each load. In this case it is your LED. Also, as you have already provided, specific the current for each load / LED. Also include the battery current and measure the battery voltage before loading it down.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 09:28:21 AM
So is it free? Of course not, you need an ECRAT circuit, an initial battery that does become expended over its use, but you will obtain additional capacity from that battery with ECRAT over what you can get from a constant service to load connection.
FE or Free Energy implies that the
energy itself is free. It has nothing to do with the one time cost of buying the machine or the cost of repairs. Although if your machine requires a noticeable maintenance cost then I would not consider it FE. What you are describing sounds like free energy; i.e., you are not charged for the energy itself. That's presuming that you can get the machine to be self-sustaining.
Looking forward to seeing the data.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on May 12, 2005, 09:55:21 AM
What would get my attention is if you could provide the following data. Measure the voltage across each load. In this case it is your LED. Also, as you have already provided, specific the current for each load / LED. Also include the battery current and measure the battery voltage before loading it down.
That is presuming your signals across the LED's are dc. If not then you'll need to use an oscilloscope.
I am curious if your machine has any pulses or spikes, which are essentially Electric waves.
Paul
Paul, If I can be assured that you will not post to the internet or forward to anyone that will, I can indeed send you graphs, although I would like to ask if you are reading my posts selectively as you ask if the LEDs are AC when I did indeed specify the times for the charge and recovery cycles, of course all measurements are made with a scope capable of full computer integration of signal measurement.
I already stated in plain terms, no claim is made to ECRAT as being OU or Free energy, this only applies should the self running rule be invoked. Consider that current switching power supplies run from 93% to 96% eff., it is within reach to use similar methods and Articulated Recovery to present the (appearance) of OU.
I have always found it very funny when I here a response such as posted in reply to ECRAT where the poster stated the circuit is of little use and has no sales appeal unless it self runs. I would assume from what he said that this means he would not consider the reduction of his existing power bills by 50% to have any meaning to him? Well there are indeed hundreds of thousands of others that think otherwise.
ECRAT is not aimed toward home energy reduction because of the various agencies that would be required to approve it before it could ever be placed in a single home. My original post fully states just why this will not happen in the near term. It is fully felt that our first product is the correct way to move. If you have ever carried liquid, compressed gas or batteries into the back woods on a hunting trip, you would be more than happy to purchase a light that would work 50% longer and provide the same functionality.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 12:12:12 PM
Paul, If I can be assured that you will not post to the internet or forward to anyone that will, I can indeed send you graphs
Yes, I will not let anyone see the data as you wish.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 12:12:12 PM
I would like to ask if you are reading my posts selectively as you ask if the LEDs are AC when I did indeed specify the times for the charge and recovery cycles, of course all measurements are made with a scope capable of full computer integration of signal measurement.
I have only seen you post in this thread, so I can only go by the data here.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 12:12:12 PM
I already stated in plain terms, no claim is made to ECRAT as being OU or Free energy, this only applies should the self running rule be invoked. Consider that current switching power supplies run from 93% to 96% eff., it is within reach to use similar methods and Articulated Recovery to present the (appearance) of OU.
This is a free energy forum. Forgetting the inefficiencies of the components, is this device getting energy from a potentially free source of energy? I consider just about any source as free energy such as zero point, ambient heat, radiant energy, solar, cold fusion, etc.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 12:12:12 PM
I have always found it very funny when I here a response such as posted in reply to ECRAT where the poster stated the circuit is of little use and has no sales appeal unless it self runs. I would assume from what he said that this means he would not consider the reduction of his existing power bills by 50% to have any meaning to him? Well there are indeed hundreds of thousands of others that think otherwise.
In the science community you need proof. So far I am still waiting for you to provide some means of proof. Without any such proof it will never take off. If you can show proof that your power bill constantly lowers from using the device then show me. BTW, one power bill before and one after is no proof. In other words, the statistics of that data would be poor.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 12:12:12 PM
ECRAT is not aimed toward home energy reduction because of the various agencies that would be required to approve it before it could ever be placed in a single home. My original post fully states just why this will not happen in the near term. It is fully felt that our first product is the correct way to move. If you have ever carried liquid, compressed gas or batteries into the back woods on a hunting trip, you would be more than happy to purchase a light that would work 50% longer and provide the same functionality.
Again, I am still waiting for the data. Please email it you want the data to remain unpublished. Surely you must know that all the data you have provided so far does not show any proof. I would gladly welcome any significant data. Show the exact scope shots, or show a long consistent power bill of not using the device one month, then using the device the next month, then not using, then using, then using it again, and not using it. IMHO such a pattern would be a minimum to get any high probability.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul, Please send me a email address where I can communicate with you, send it to articulate@houston.rr.com
I would like to continue this off line or at least until I can determine from you why you are taking so much out of context from my posts?
I'm fully aware that this is a "Free Energy" group, but because no one yet has "Free Energy" I question why you felt it necessary to tell me this fact.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 02:30:36 PM
I would like to continue this off line or at least until I can determine from you why you are taking so much out of context from my posts?
Please feel free to quote what I took out of context.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 02:30:36 PM
I'm fully aware that this is a "Free Energy" group, but because no one yet has "Free Energy" I question why you felt it necessary to tell me this fact.
You mean nobody has proven it yet, but a lot claim free energy.
I told you that fact because of your claims.? Here is your quote, "Has shown by verification that Charge can be used over in a properly designed circuit. This fact allows for the reduction of power recover in many circuits of Pout/Pin > 180%."
Any Pout / Pin over 100% is either FE or OU.? Did you forget your own posts?
Paul
Well Paul, because you want this in public then I guess you are getting some kick and trying to make points with the group.
WHO? WHERE? WHAT?
What OU device, where can I test this device and what is the device. Please don't give me the same old OU junk we all hear. You want me to prove it, where are these OU devices you are talking about, not the 100 year old stuff that does not exist, something today I can fly out to and see?
You want to see mine? Fine, set a time when you can be in the Houston area (you alone and not a group of supporters of some extreme group). Bring your test equipment and video camera and we can talk. Otherwise why not try solving todays energy problems and get off you band stand.
For those with a real intrest in ECRAT, I have attached a jpg of an ECRAT driving 5 white LEDs. This circuit has been running for over 148 hours on 6X AA batts (9V) and has only dropped the battery voltage by 0.27 volts in the current period.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 04:42:45 PM
Well Paul, because you want this in public then I guess you are getting some kick and trying to make points with the group.
Yes, that is a guess on your part for sure. You might want to stick to facts rather than speculations. The reasons are obvious. You started a public thread and I asked for proof. You asked if I wanted to be emailed the graphs and when I confirm you drop the subject and instead accuse me of taking your posts out of context. So I called your bluff and asked you to quote me of doing such. Now your come back is that I get some kick from replying to your public posts. You might want to do some unbiased self-contemplation tonight. That's my only suggestion to you.
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 04:42:45 PM
WHO? WHERE? WHAT?
What OU device, where can I test this device and what is the device. Please don't give me the same old OU junk we all hear. You want me to prove it, where are these OU devices you are talking about, not the 100 year old stuff that does not exist, something today I can fly out to and see?
You do not read careful and quickly jump to conclusions to fit your reality. I said, "You mean nobody has proven it yet, but a lot claim free energy." You asked, "What OU device, where can I test this device and what is the device." So where did I mention a or any OU device in that is real?
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 04:42:45 PM
You want to see mine? Fine, set a time when you can be in the Houston area (you alone and not a group of supporters of some extreme group). Bring your test equipment and video camera and we can talk. Otherwise why not try solving todays energy problems and get off you band stand.
LOL, that's what I thought. Initially I thought you might be a legitimate person, but now I drop your legitimacy probability down to ~10%.
Let me know if and when you plan of backing up your claims about me and/or your device.
Sincerely,
Paul
Quote from: drstiffler on May 12, 2005, 04:55:04 PM
For those with a real intrest in ECRAT, I have attached a jpg of an ECRAT driving 5 white LEDs. This circuit has been running for over 148 hours on 6X AA batts (9V) and has only dropped the battery voltage by 0.27 volts in the current period.
Oh boy, that's the same type of fuzzy logic that John Bedini has been pulling off for decades. Please, at least show some proof. I am really getting tired of these consistent monthly people who offer these attractive projects to these poor people who don't know better (enough science) and get sucked into spending time and/or money on them.
I simply asked you for some proof. Still waiting. I don't need your secret-- just measurements. If your measurements seem real then I will find a local scientists near you to verify your claims.
Paul
Well you'll, I have been on the net from 1993 with various groups that claim OU, Free Energy and whatever out there and to date "NO ONE" claims such a device that they will allow the testing of. I claim to offer a 50% reduction by NON-OU methods and you all wet your pants.
Great!
I have only one person at a time to prove my claims to, that is the camper that will purchase my ECRAT camping lamp and be able to confirm when compared to the tent next to him that his lamp does indeed last 50% longer.
I am done for this thread. Please have fun with you crap about "He don't have any thing" party line. I will be going to the bank and you all will still want the full diagram and design specifications so you can get your own cut.
Bye all!
Quote from: rstiffler on May 12, 2005, 06:11:10 PM
I have only one person at a time to prove my claims to, that is the camper that will purchase my ECRAT camping lamp and be able to confirm when compared to the tent next to him that his lamp does indeed last 50% longer.
I get tired of this but here goes again. If your lamp burns longer then that is by no means proof. BTW, 50% ??? That sounds like a real non-specific number. Anyhow, when a battery becomes low then it requires special circuitry if you want to
suck more energy out of it. This is due to the fact that the batteries internal resistance increases a great deal, especially when it's nearly completely empty. There are circuits that can suck a lot more energy out of the battery by significantly lowering and matching the batteries load resistance.
Again, by all means post your measurements as I outlined. You claim to have the Nobel Prize of all Nobel Prizes, yet you want to milk it for every cent you can at the cost of 7 billion people, countries that are heating up on the verge of WIII, a planet that is in danger of global warming, forests that are being chopped down at an alarming rate, ice shelves the size of states that are breaking off and melting. I find it odd that you'll keep your ECRAT secret. That's funny because my spell checker keeps telling me your ECRAT should be SECRET, LOL.
Go ahead, keep it a secret. It's your karma.
Paul
Paul,
if you are going on to" piss off" all the inventors over here with your
attitude I will ban you from my forum.
This is the first warning.
Ron, please report further on on your ECRAT and please ignore Paul.
He seems to be only here for his own fun.
He claimed to have worked on some energy invention himself,
but since he is here he never reported about it, but only hits on other inventors.
So Paul, why don?t you report better about your own inventions and
leave the other inventors alone ?
Regards, Stefan.
I wonder how similar the ECRAT circuit is compared to the circuit at this page:
http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/bigclive/joule.htm?
From the ECRAT description it seems to operate like the joule thief does.
No,
it is different. Ron has already shown me more.
It involves also a special core and a special driver circuit.
I think getting 50 % more power out of any power supply is
a very good achievement.
Ron should continue to develop this circuit.
Regards, Stefan.
Piss off as in confronting and using logic, LOL? It seems I am the one who quotes, where as most others make claim after claim without any evidence, math, statistical data, or even a quote. If he's going to say something specific about me then at least quote me. That's right, I keep forgetting how delicate / sensitive society teaches people. You can't confront people and you have to tippie toe around their delicate emotions and say one thing when you really are thinking another. You have to break the bad news to them so ever softly and slowly-- like people are so fragile. Yes, this is something I find difficult to practice. I find it difficult to believe people are so fragile. You can't be blunt because most people instantly think you are being hyper, aggressive, and possibly angry.
Paul
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 13, 2005, 03:30:02 AM
Paul,
if you are going on to" piss off" all the inventors over here with your
attitude I will ban you from my forum.
This is the first warning.
Ron, please report further on on your ECRAT and please ignore Paul.
He seems to be only here for his own fun.
He claimed to have worked on some energy invention himself,
but since he is here he never reported about it, but only hits on other inventors.
So Paul, why don?t you report better about your own inventions and
leave the other inventors alone ?
Regards, Stefan.
Paul I have set you now on only reading and not allow postings anymore, before you don?t
excuse yourself to Ron.
Instrument measurment of the light intensity and spectra should be included in the evidence. Feeding LEDs pulses instead of DC may increase the efficiency though 50% is a high goal. Maybe clever conventional electronics can help off grid people have lighting. One battery white LED flashlights are already available. Sorry I rushed - now to read the posts in the middle.
Aloha Charlie
Circuitry that allows rechargeable batteries to be discharged more deeply may shorten their life. A deeply discharged battery may also be beyond the design expectations of a battery recharger. Designers in this field should work with electrochemical considerations and create circuits that feed power to and draw power from batteries in such ways that batteries perform better.
Aloha, Charlie