Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity

[hartiberlin]

2) Khwartz went in the french forum and asked the autorisation to spread informations about RV in the englishe world. This has been granted with the mention not to spread it on overunity, because only critics were here.

There you are really wrong.
We already have over 70.000 members over here and there are certainly many very brilliant researchers
who DON`T are sceptics...

Surely some prefer just to read and not take part in the discussion....

If the Vialle´s work can not stand a few sceptics over here, which might point out measurement errors,
then what ?
If he is valid and genuine it will progress , also over here !

P.S: Please ALL stop posting private email messages and private names here, due to the Terms of Service and privacy policies
I must delete these messages.

Thanks for your understanding.


Regards, Stefan.

[Khwartz]

Hi Khwartz,

Hi tim

while I am somewhat in awe of Verpies understanding of, and his clear enumeration of the issues involved in these measurements, I'm not sure that presenting them to COS is the right thing to do...

Okay, I can understand that

If they were my questions, I would, of course. But Verpies is not doing a replication as far as I'm aware, and his questions - I believe - were rhetorical. He is not seeking answers to thse questions, and nor am I - at least - not today.

Understand too

At the moment, I'm not at the stage where I need to know the answers the verpies questions, but if i get to that stage, and i think that it would help - i will ask the COS guys...

I get your logic but I am not necessarily agree with the result of your logic because of a difference of reality (data), I think.

If we need to know which procedure is good to follow to get an overunity, we need to know which procedures have indeed produced o.u. in the former experiments, but if we are not sure of the results because of doubts about the measurements so we are in doubt too about which procedure to follow. So for me the question is still mostly relevant. Without good data, many time is lost each time.

Pascal seems to be very frustrated with the whole project. It seems that despite his hard work he has been unable to replicate the effect.

As I could remember he did replicate "the effect", if it is the "Vialle effect": producing a little avalanche of power from 2 halves insulated and separated pipes, by means of a coil and specifiques frequencies.
(This effect is mostly easy to obtain if having good range of frequencies. See Biganos's adives I've reported here.)

If I remember well too, he obtained the phenomenon called "negative power" (drop of the power consumption as the interpretations read by the measurements, and he get similar results than JLN and even worked like a mirror with him, positively critiquing each other).

Still if I remember well, it was about to  fail to reproduce the laboratory selfrun of the sponsors, and to get true power, so the famous "kW" (6 kW for 1 meter bar) Richards has calculated, nor the "very avalanche of power" (long arch of Richard (?) and of 1 or tow experimenters since).

As I have understood him, is very deception is not getting the true power, the power which could be used to power a house.

Perhaps he has given up on it. I think there is no 'right' way for the replication. If there was, Pascal would be happy...

I am not agree with you, dear tim, there are "rights ways", in my opinion. Like Colas07 does or the PROMTECNO team does too.

For them, overunity is very easy to obtain; all the problem is that it is based on their interpretation of their measurements. So still the same: to really be sure they do indeed the right way, we need to be sure of what they do about the measurements;  we just come back at my first point

BUT, as JNL, as Pascusier, as Colas, as Biganos, they all have achieved very very interesting results which could be indeed overunity.

So the logical thing for me would be to do at least as good as they have been able to do and then to go further with more rigour in anything.

But I know it is not really the way you feel you have to do

I do think that there *is* something to be discovered in the general arrangement of: feeding signals into masses... Keely acheived OU & antigrav & more - all using sound, and for some reason, M. Vialle's generator reminds me of Keely's work... John Hutchison's HF anti-grav too...

Yeap, if Keely achieved all this

I think it's remarkable that the speed of sound in 1m copper (3.6Km/s) is *exactly about* (It's a scientific term ) 1000 times less than the Vialle resonance... That is spooky.

So, what I'm saying is: as the right way to build or drive the device has not yet been found,

I not necessarily agree as I said just before. If the COPs 2.6, 35, and even negative are accurate, indeed there are already existing "right ways to build".

For me, the most important thing is not to replicate but to check if the different levels of effects do exist, but to check if the very promising and interesting results already obtained are valid or not, to check the already done and published replications cause then it would tell us which were "the right ways". And any way, as to the "building", I don't see truly variation, there is NO difficulty, as I have seen, it is in having enough powerful amplifiers, learning how to tune the input and the output (all this looks to me rather mastered), AND HAVE ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS so that we could give VALID results which could guide us accurately too and economise our time by avoiding misleading results.

The previous have been shown as enough to obtain the first levels of effect up the negative power and high COP (still of course if the measurements were indeed accurated...).

we can't expect to follow a formula...

Following the way of Colas and soon of BlueDragon, and I am pretty sure you will registre intersting things, or of course, demonstrate the non accuracy of their procedures. But for now, still need to be checked.

It have been made already a whole bunch of replications, it is not like if nothing had been done with no results!

We have to use our imagination and knowledge, and just try stuff out...


Tim

Follow your own intuition, but please, just remembered my words and the warnings of Biganos (and Blue) dear tim

[Khwartz]

 

@ Zgreudz & verpies

Just have seen your post, dear Zgreudz 

My eyes indeed get near wet when I discovered it while I didn't expect so fast but so so wished it!

Sorry if some time I so want things could go in the right direction, that my suggestions are near taken like obligations!

I knew your level of skills and I knew those of verpies. It is MOSTLY valuable for everyone that you I took time to answer once again to the technical points about measurements procedures.

I hope you and verpies you have well understood it had nothing with a kind of competition but just to benefit and add your both knowledges and experiences about measurements, with the advantage you have, dear Zgreudz, of having praticed the RV U (even with a skeptical point of view).

So now I would just ask if you, dear verpies, you would be okay to comment Zgreudz last answers, not in the purpose to have then new answers from Zgreudz, but just to complete the clarification of each item so that the replicators or the researchers could use these data as a data base to run accurate procedures.

I remember you, you have NO obligation!  I just try to put some organisation in the whole thing. My time is precious and I suppose the time of many others here too. So if I could help to win so time to everybody here while having more accurate and efficient procedures, I would be very satified of what I do here and now (aside the translations and compilation work).

VERY THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND GENEROSITY (for the time granted),

B.R.
K.

[tim123]

UCC27524P does not have differential inputs nor independent source/sink outputs and is weaker than the UCC27511.
You do not need a DIP anyway, the SMD driver can be glued to the Power MOSFET because it needs to be very close to the MOSFET's gate terminal. 
See how closely Itsu had mounted his SMD driver to the transistor in this video.

Hi Verpies,
Itsu's driver was mounted in an adapter socket... Is this the right thing?
http://www.coolcomponents.co.uk/sot23-to-dip-adapter.html?gclid=CLHD3-etwbwCFUjpwgodXz0AGg#.

Do you just superglue the chip to the board?

[itsu]

Hi Verpies,
Itsu's driver was mounted in an adapter socket... Is this the right thing?
http://www.coolcomponents.co.uk/sot23-to-dip-adapter.html?gclid=CLHD3-etwbwCFUjpwgodXz0AGg#.

Do you just superglue the chip to the board?

Hi Tim,

that looks like the correct adapter for the ucc27511, yes.

You need to solder it on the adapter, for a nice video about SMD soldering, see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NN7UGWYmBY

The flux is a must in my opinion, and at my age the maginifier as well   

Regards Itsu