Negative resistance via pyroclay.com material ?

[RadiantEnRg]

Last thing...the hum is VERY audible....Sounds like a pissed off hornet

[Super]

Wow how much to read here ... but happy end 

ITSFWI:

Please folks be aware that one cannot simple mix EE priciples with a FE/OU/CE concept!
=> The result in the end will be a not working scrap something!

And if you are even in study EE therory and have also less practical experiences
- mixing of those concepts can be dangerous to you - your grades!

So the easiest way is to test something by own - make experiments and you will see
whats really going on - because all EE theorie cannot show you the way to what we are looking for.

Oh, and this is not a school, try to get a therory about FE/OU/CE you like, there are plenty of it
around us ... there is no book or something else that tells you how to learn FE/OU/CE like schoolbooks does ...

... hope new people now understands that torture their brains by mixing EE and FE is pointless.

Super

[RadiantEnRg]

@ Super

  Great point.....not only them...tortures my brain as well...trying to explain it in terms they can "handle"...EEs are trained...it's as simple as that. If an EE really wants to get a concept of how this works....Leave your training at the door.

However, I want to make something clear, they are in no way wrong....they just don't have the "BIG PICTURE"....and that is so on purpose. Tesla proved this over a hundred years ago, and all other, and I mean ALL other FE/OU inventors have just re-invented Tesla tech.
So i urge all of you, GO TO THE SOURCE!!....The reason Stan Meyers is so hard to read is because he encrypted it. He did not want people to know that his tech. was patented many years ago, so anyone could have replicated and sold. It's all just unique applications of Tesla's early findings.
If you guys read Tesla's patents, it's all there plain as day..take it at face value and run with it.

[linda933]

You guys may be right about basic education in electronics being an impediment to understanding the odd jargon and far-out theories of "radiant energy" effects.  I admit I know far too little in that area to agree or disagree.

However, when discussing how conventional, commercial, classic, standardized mass-produced electronic power supplies work, I'd say that a good basic electronics education would be rather essential.  Otherwise, there may be a tendency to miscommunicate, misunderstand and mis-describe basic ordinary conventional circuitry and its operating modes.

Since in most electrical attempts at producing overunity machines there is at least a basis of conventional electronics used (power supplies, signal generators, inductors, capacitors, semiconductors, transformers, etc) it would be a really great idea to try to learn the basics of how those things really work and the correct terminology for discussing them.

Then, based on a thorough understanding of the conventional, the eyes are able to observe and the tongue is able to describe things better which seem not to fit the conventions.  It is quite common and very sad to watch while people attribute all sorts of "amazing" and "mysteriously unconventional" behaviors to what are in fact just normal-behaving conventional circuits which they simply have no real understanding of.  

Those who steadfastly decline to learn the conventional and adopt only the unconventional theories never have the chance to observe this, I guess, but it's rampant on this forum.  Really sad, too.  A lot of wasted time and effort just from not knowing the basics of conventional electronics.

Let's put it this way:  You don't have a prayer of recognizing what is truly unconventional behavior if you are not familiar with the normal, expected and conventional behaviors!

To toss aside all the knowledge and technological advancement based on that knowledge, declaring it as something that should be left at the door would mean that you would spend lots of time being amazed and astounded by what appear to be mysterious phenomena that are in truth very well known, common and fully understood!

So, unless you are ready to toss aside your modern electronic tools, instruments and components (all of which conform entirely to the known laws of conventional electronics teachings)...including the web and your computer and all your communications devices...

Try to have a little more respect for those who spend time gathering a "conventional education".  That base of knowledge is certainly not complete, but it is what has brought us all the technology that we depend upon all day long every day to even begin to explore and discuss what remains to be found!  

I find it to be a far worse and less excusable sin to remain uneducated in the well-known realms of conventional science while condemning it as being incomplete (all the while pretending to accurately discuss and understand it) than to confess an ignorance and curiosity of the unconventional and unknown aspects while seeking to gain a solid foundation in that which is well known and understood.  Just my two cents in defense of basic education.

Linda

[RadiantEnRg]

@Linda....again you make me laugh. From the get go, I told all that I am not an EE, and don't know terms too well. However, I know enough to accurately describe what I see thank you. I also think a picture is worth a 1000 words!!.....And, as you have done quite alot so far....You missed my point. "They are in no way wrong"...is what my point was....I know what is conventional...I also know what is not.....I also know desperate attempts to rationalize something, when I hear it.....I don't KNOW anything at all...neither do you.....all I can do is describe what I SEE, and make hypothesis!