Quote from: JustMe on March 09, 2008, 08:57:34 PM

Quote from: polarbreeze on March 09, 2008, 06:22:33 PM
A lot of the emotional stuff that gets posted in this forum is really not very helpful to Thane's credibility, by association.

Polar, I'm sure you'd lay the entire blame for the "emotional stuff" at the feet of posters here other than yourself, and really and truly believe it.  However, the fact is you are on OVERUNITY.COM.  And here on overunity.com you've said OU is a "fantasy", and that anyone who might observe ane report such a thing was "stupid".  You've used words like "suspicious", and rather uselessly insulted a patent application for a different device entirely. You've called people pseudo-scientists and crackpots, and dragged out the spectre of the tin foil hat.  All those words are loaded, loaded, loaded, and any one of them calls a man many things, all without the benefit of you actually having to make any actual observations or a real argument. I don't how they let it roll off their backs to the degree that they do, because without even having it directed at me personally I almost blew an artery on another forum dealing with a few folks who were being neanderthal thugs on the matter, who would also go to their grave swearing how objective and impersonal it all was.

There is nothing wrong with wanting good, reliable data.  There is a great deal wrong with your attitude considering where you are.

I think I said that it would be "stupid" to make that claim and the reason is that it would ruin the inventor's credibility and thereby prevent him from getting funding to advance the work. Thane has received exactly the same advice from some of the PhD references whose names are used on this forum. Maybe I could have used a milder word - so sorry for that. It wasn't intended as an insult to OU believers: just a comment about a reality of the techno-business world.

My comment about the patent was in response to another poster who said he'd "found the patent" and posted a link to it. He hadn't and I pointed that out. I think that's pretty much OK.

etc... etc... I don't have the patience to retrace all of what you're saying. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about any "tin foil hat" though so I think maybe you're collecting others' words in with mine.

Quote from: OilBarren on March 09, 2008, 10:34:57 PM

Quote from: polarbreeze on March 09, 2008, 10:21:52 PM

That does sound very interesting.
What is the difference in the test setup/conditions between tests 2, 3 and 4?
What's the reason for dropping the input voltage in test #4 to 1.75V; and what happens if you keep it at 2V?

WE ARE ADDING IN TURNS - SIMPLY CONNECTING WIRES ON THE SECONDARY.
WE ARE NOT DROPPING THE VOLTAGE IT IS DROPPING ON IT'S OWN AS IS THE CURRENT. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THE OUTPUT GOES UP.

WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THE INPUT WHAT SO EVER....

It would be helpful for each test to list the number of turns that are "in circuit" on the secondary. Also, how many turns are there on the primary? Have your considered how impedance is reflected through the transformer? Does the source impedance come into play? (Maybe that has something to do with the input voltage dropping?)

Permit me another dumb question: what's different in the construction of these toroidal transformers compared to off-the-shelf ones? (I realize they have multiple taps for test purposes but what I'm getting at is the basic construction features that make them behave differently than off-the-shelf ones). Thanks.

PS - any chance of making a snowblower out of this thing?!!! Have you dug out yet...?

PB that was funny   good funny  Chet

Quote from: polarbreeze on March 09, 2008, 10:50:28 PM
I think I said that it would be "stupid" to make that claim and the reason is that it would ruin the inventor's credibility and thereby prevent him from getting funding to advance the work. Thane has received exactly the same advice from some of the PhD references whose names are used on this forum. Maybe I could have used a milder word - so sorry for that. It wasn't intended as an insult to OU believers: just a comment about a reality of the techno-business world.

My comment about the patent was in response to another poster who said he'd "found the patent" and posted a link to it. He hadn't and I pointed that out. I think that's pretty much OK.

etc... etc... I don't have the patience to retrace all of what you're saying. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about any "tin foil hat" though so I think maybe you're collecting others' words in with mine.

The "tin foil hat" thing was probably jacksatan, so I retract that with apology. Your original comments on the patent application that stood for a short time before you edited them several days ago would be described as neutral by exactly no one, so we'll call that a retraction too, perhaps with an implied apology.  And I don't think anybody would ever confuse any of your comments with those of Dr. Townsend. All that being said, you're dead on when you say that the emotional responses are unproductive and a distraction, and my last post to you was intended to point out that you do have some power of your own to steer this discussion in a positive way.  However if your response to me is a true reflection of your perception of the things you've said, and a true reflection of your perpection of what a reasonable person might draw from your various statements, I'm not sure that you appreciate that as much as you could.

You don't have to find OU or other versions of colouring outside the lines likely or even possible to be a good addition to this thread.  In fact, it's the very fact that you don't, along with your empirical nature, that contributes to you being a valuable check and balance.  Like it or not, overunity.com is where we are with this, because like it or not, Thane's back-emf theory takes it here and out of the comfortable world of journal articles and textbooks, out of the well documented and the well understood. So you, and in a sense I as well, are strangers in a strange land.  Guests as it were. I think there's benefit in remembering that.

PB  you conger up emotional response at will  To say it has no place    and then provide the venue  WELL whats up with that  Chet