Energy from the Ground - Self powered generator by Barbosa and Leal

[Void]

Dang man... 

[MileHigh]

Meanwhile back on EF BroMonkey is in full sycophant overdrive mode for Clarence, which is 'enabling' Clarence to get away with brushing off Level's requests for supporting data.  That thread is being screwed up by that dynamic.

[MileHigh]

Dang man... 

Get your box of Kleenex out, oh so cool and groovy !great one.

[skribat]

If someone is adamant that the captor system can not work. I suggest that they build a version in the laboratory
where they use a high wattage dummy load resistance and a variac power supply to be the varying array input signal.
When wired correctly the various device input signals will slowly track voltage rises and current signals will match the
demand as translated from the battery charger and the inverter.

Approximate Goal to wire captor correctly...

If one inserts a ground system of the type that Clarence has into a utility ground
return path, one should expect *something* will happen. One would not expect
"nothing" to happen. That is some voltage and some current, i.e. some power,
at the internal impedance of the ground array will make itself available from the
array. By using a purpose built self adjusting ferrite transformer (aka ferorresonant
transformer) the circuit attached can become a (a)voltage regulator that is hold its
internal voltages relatively constant while the internal devices (battery charger + inverter)
can set their input current based on a function of their internal need. and (b) a mixer
that can modulate the 60hz reference signal carrier from the inverter onto slower
voltage waveform signals being received from the ground array independent of
source (telluric vs utility tail power) and can use these simultaneously if available.

I doubt if Clarence designed his successful captor but there are so few components
that a evolutionary circuit design could easily have taken place.


.S.MarkSCoffman

-----------------------

I would say that sounds quite reasonable, and as for  'evolutionary  (design) development', that is exactly what Clarence claims. .. I really can't imagine any of the nay-sayers attempting to disprove the captor by getting 'hands-on'
.

[Pirate88179]

-----------------------

I would say that sounds quite reasonable, and as for  'evolutionary  (design) development', that is exactly what Clarence claims. .. I really can't imagine any of the nay-sayers attempting to disprove the captor by getting 'hands-on'
.

I can't imagine that either...and why would they?  Why would someone that knows for a fact that this can't work, waste time and money to build something that can't work?  That would, of course, be stupid.

Let me ask you this:  Have you ever stuck your hand into a running blender?  No?  Why not?  Is it because you KNOW what would happen and therefore you don't have to TRY it to find out?

Well, this is exactly the same thing.  Most folks here KNOW that this will not work and therefore, do not have to build it to find out.

Very simple really.

Also, as mentioned above, and hundreds of times on this forum in various topic areas, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claims, not the other way around.  Trying to reverse this logical approach also makes no sense.

Bill