Advanced and Delayed magnetic field's.

[MarkE]

Let me give you a practical example:  A few years ago Steven Jones reported that using expensive gear at BYU he was measuring 8X overunity on his JT variant.  He experimented by changing a couple of resistor values using potentiometers.  He observed on his oscilloscope waveforms that indicated his battery was being recharged by the circuit for part of each cycle.  The expensive oscilloscope reported more energy going back into the battery than coming out of it.  Eureka???

If one were to simulate his circuit without including the effects of his wiring and his oscilloscope probe set-up, one would not get over unity or anything that looks like Steven Jones reported results.  Does that make the experiment or the simulation wrong?  It means that one or both are wrong.  When two methods to observe the same thing yield different results then there is work to be done to see which if either is correct.   Back when this went on several people went about that by performing replications and simulations.  At least one I can think of showed that it was the experiment that was fouled up.  They showed how it was the scope probes and how they were being hooked up that were the problem. 

Another similar example is Rosemary Ainslie.  She too used an expensive oscilloscope to make measurements that did not agree with simulations of her reported circuit.  She too had measurements that showed current moving back and forth between the test circuit and the batteries.  Poynt99 was able to uncover the real circuit schematic by comparing simulations against Ms. Ainslie's reported results.  He was able to reproduce her results when he refined his model to include the electrical effects of her wiring arrangements.  Ms. Ainslie ultimately conducted experiments that included additional set-ups that Poynt99 suggested that were far less susceptible to corruption than her original set-ups that were left in place for comparison.  All measurements ended up consistent with Poynt99's simulations.  The new measurement set-ups showed the actual power draw from her batteries.  The mystery was incontrovertibly reconciled.

My message is:

1) Simulation is a tool. 
2) Simulation provides an independent view of what is seen in the lab. 
3) Both simulation and lab observations can be wrong.
4) When simulation and the lab line up we can be confident in each. 
5) When they don't agree we need to keep digging.

[MarkE]

Hi TM,

You're hands on approach is what make you understand, modify & develop your setups...
Just keep at it just like they did in the 1800's mate... ...they didn't have any scope/simu or what not...
But nature provided everything needed and still does...

The video you posted is funny in a sence of...
"violating one of the universe's most fundamental laws"...no no no...violating one of men's most fundamental laws...lol...

Ferrite is better when it comes to less drag on the system and i do hope you can get your hands on more of those cores type so you can build a complete generator setup...

Have a good one...

Would you care to compare the pace of technology development today with modern tools versus say 1860?

[that-prophet]

free energy is super simple
you put DC power into a motor with a 100cm circumference pulley on it
you attach a belt, strap, rope or even a string in a pinch
and then attach at least one AC motor to a 1cm pulley on the same belt
you run the AC output through a full wave bridge rectifier to self power...
your DC input motor,,,,
then you have just created your first free energy electricity multiplier
satan will try to complain about torque, but it is no problem, just think about how easily an electric motor rotates,,,
you could have 10 - 100 AC motors attached, multiplying your input by 1000 - 10 000..
now dont you think this much output power could turn your input DC motor

[MarkE]

free energy is super simple
you put DC power into a motor with a 100cm circumference pulley on it
you attach a belt, strap, rope or even a string in a pinch
and then attach at least one AC motor to a 1cm pulley on the same belt
you run the AC output through a full wave bridge rectifier to self power...
your DC input motor,,,,
then you have just created your first free energy electricity multiplier
satan will try to complain about torque, but it is no problem, just think about how easily an electric motor rotates,,,
you could have 10 - 100 AC motors attached, multiplying your input by 1000 - 10 000..
now dont you think this much output power could turn your input DC motor

Send your idea to PESN.  Ignore that in the ideal case the DC motor output power required is identical to the AC motor load, and that in the real world it will always be greater.

[tinman]

Would you care to compare the pace of technology development today with modern tools versus say 1860?

Yes,we have gone from learning to thinking we can set ruel's and absolutes(the laws of physics) in what would be nothing more than a drop of water in the ocean as far as mans time here go's.Man has put the brakes on in his own advancements,with a set of laws he really knows nothing about yet.

So this is it Mark,we have come as far as we can go?. No light speed travel because man says it's not possable-->what kind of crap is that. Tell us why light speed is not possable Mark.