Quote from: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 12:07:10 PM
IST/William:

Your waveform is just a standard ring-down associated with an RLC circuit.  For anyone that is interested you can look up "RLC circuit" on Wikipedia.  For what it's worth it will also give you a sense of what the "real world" is like with respect to electronics.

MileHigh

now this is a laugh ... 

buzz off or im gonna spinn you ....

william ..  get with the flow or get off my planet!

not to be rude MH but honestly ...    i guy can only take so much ... 

watch this ... 

i have a coil ... i tune it  mass  to mass  the secondairy can be a rlc if i want it to ... or it could be SHORTED.. and as i pulse it the SECONDARY  makes HARMONICS....  AND I THEN CAN TUNE WITH COILS TO EACH ONE ....

humm  do i need to build it to understand it no .. agin i ask you WHY?

i damm well do know why...

thank you

H

Gadget:

I am very sorry that you had a stroke and I admire your courage.  However, if you make statements and I disagree with them I am going to tell you.  If you make statements that are definitive and indicate that your ideas and thought processes are way off track then I am going to tell you also.  You can disagree with me and there is nothing that I can do about it.  We all have a responsibility to try to get at the truth when doing formal or informal research.

If I tell you that you are wrong or don't understand something I am not calling you "stupid."  Look at the example of supercapacitors and ultracapacitors.  I have been telling everyone in the group that suerpcapacitors and ultracapacitors are simply capacitors.  Their one main distinction is that they have very large capacitance values.  The capacitance values are so large that they seem almost inconceivable to people that may have been out of touch with the electronics industry for the past 10 years.  None the less, supercapacitors and ultracapacitors are simply large capacitors.  Yourself and others on the JT threads seemingly don't want to believe this.  It takes away from the idea that there is something "extra special" about supercapacitors.  However, when some of you are put on the spot to explain what makes supercapacitors different and special, you are unable to offer up any substantive reasons for your argument.   Many times you have made statements about supercapacitors being able to burn nichrome wire and batteries can't do this.  Many times you have been told that this is normal and expected behaviour and it is not surprising.  Small batteries have never been able to burn wire because their output impedance is too high and they can't supply enough current.  Any capacitor that's large enough has always been able to burn wire because their output impedance is nearly zero and they can supply enough current.  You don't need a supercapacitor to burn wire, it can be any type of capacitor, as long as it is large enough.

All your comments about government conspiracies can be taken with a grain of salt.  The government is not worried about what is going on here.  We all would like to have a better energy future and I think things will evolve in that direction over time.  It will be based on renewable energy technologies and not "free energy" technologies.  You may disagree and then the burden of proof rests on your shoulders and the shoulders of others that think like you.

Your proposition is that you can put some sort of device inside a transparent glass box and somehow that device will produce heat from "nowhere" or "some other place" or the device will "create heat from nothing."  The scientists say that you can't get something from nothing.

When you look at a battery charging a supercap via a JT circuit, you can make measurements on the energy and see if it is over unity or not.   You can charge the supercap with the circuit, then use the supercap to partially recharge the battery, and then discharge the remaining energy in the supercap as your "free energy."  You think that you can do this cycle over and over and over without end.  Go ahead and test it.  Groundloop is gracious enough to layout the PCB and pay for them, and then individuals just have to buy the components and populate the PCBs and start their testing.

When people do the testing they might be able to run the device through 10 cycles, 15 cycles, perhaps even 20 cycles.  Eventually the battery will run dead, the system will run out of energy.  The battery only contains a certain amount of equivalent heat energy and there is no "magic source" of electrical/heat energy to keep the battery fully charged for every cycle.

Go ahead and build the thing.  I am not trying to stop you, nor is the government trying to stop you.  As long as the people doing the testing are recording and reporting their results accurately then I say bring it on.  However, anyone testing this setup has a responsibility to themselves and to others have a basic grasp of the the electronics and measurement techniques to make their data credible.  You seem to want to ignore this requirement and as the de facto leader of this project, I say that it is incumbent upon you to understand the basic electronics and measurement techniques. 

This requirement to understand is where your JT group comes into play.  How many of you can calculate the amount of Joules in an AA battery based on the ampere-hour rating?  I don't know the answer to that question but I can tell you that all of you should be able to do this if you want to run the tests.  Somebody should raise the issue on your JT thread and you should debate it amongst yourselves until all of your are satisfied that you understand.  I am sure that there is someone in the JT group that does understand how to make the calculation that will be involved in the project so there is no reason that everyone doing the testing can't be up to speed on this issue.

MileHigh

Quote from: innovation_station on December 07, 2009, 11:56:28 AM
i am sorry if you read this as ignarnt .. totaly not the intenction  benind my reply ...


yikes ..  i just offered to teach YOU 1 0N 1 ..  THEN YOU SIR CAN SHARE ...

this is what i ment mr.m

o boy .... 

william

btw im well aware of your skills this is why i offered ... 

dont read my words with my dark eye .... ok   read them with BOTH  ... please

Sorry if I read it wrong. It would be nice to get together to discuss things. I finally redid my work bench and am getting ready to get back into things.
But you still didn't tell me what you see in the scope shot. I see what MH is saying. Can you please tell me what else you see.

@Gadget
I haven't had a stroke (yet) but I know what your talking about. I am getting those constant brain farts! I used to do it all also. Repair radios, TV's, you name it, from a very early age. I remember when I was around 8 yrs. old building my cat whisker receiver. Probably have a hell of a time doing it now.

IST:

Now you are "H?"  I thought that you were/are "w" or "william"

I don't know what the point of your posting is, nor do I know why you assume this strange online persona.

To repeat, the waveform you show is what a damped, a.k.a. exponentially decaying amplitude envelope of an RC resonant oscillator looks like.

I have no clue where your strange comments come from especially considering your voice in your YouTube clips sounds perfectly sane.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on December 07, 2009, 01:17:42 PM
IST:

Now you are "H?"  I thought that you were/are "w" or "william"

MileHigh

He's not MileHigh, he's just High.