Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[derricka]

Regardless of Dr. Stiffler's reasons for taking down the web site and videos, I would still like to thank him for what he did share with us, as this took both time and effort.
It's not easy being a trailblazer, and many  have had their new discoveries misunderstood, mocked, ridiculed and endlessly questioned.
And just as there are plenty of people out there who would blow out your candle, just to make their own look a little brighter, there are people willing to help shield your flame.
The secret , as in football, is to ignore attempted tricks of distraction, and keep focused on the goal.
So to Dr. Stiffler, this may be a tad premature, but I would like to say thanks, and Merry Christmas!

[Pirate88179]

Greetings:

I have been following this topic for a long time and I have to speak up.  I, like almost everyone on this forum, have hopes for "breakthrough" devices and keep an open mind for that.  Sorry to say that Dr. Stiffler follows the same thing I have seen here, time and time again.  Post something potentially wonderful....give some idea on how to replicate, and become very sensitive to any questions or criticisms of the device...then...disappear.

I have watched Stefan's videos and a few others.  These people were trying their best to replicate this device.  All they got was..."you don't have the right core, you are altering the experiment.." etc.  Then they get the "right" core and now it's "you missinterrperted my schematic, try again."  Then it's.."I'm out of here."

Think about this.  If Stefan, or most anyone else on here (including me) had something they thought was great but wanted to have replicated to be sure.  We would not release information on a "strip tease" basis.  We would welcome ANY question that might help someone to replicate, not get pissed at them.  Over in the Earth Battery's topic I posted a video of my experiment and welcomed anyone to replicate it.  If they have trouble, I will try to help.  It is not as complicated as this topic I will admit but, more the reason to be even more helpful if you want it to be replicated.  Face it, a Great Idea meant to be open source should be provided such that anyone can replicate it.  But wait, 6 people did but, we never heard from them.  Dr. Stiffler may be a genius, I am not making any judgment on that as this is not my field but, if it were me, I would have made sure that ALL of the serious replicators had what they needed as far as info, to do the job.  My 2.5 cents worth.  Guessing at items missing on the schematic, the type of core, as well as other components is NOT the way to go as far as I am concerned.

Bill

[hoptoad]

Amigo:

I can understand how you would be agitated at people seemingly not thinking outside of the box..........

However, if i'm not mistaken, what we are searching for is a way to produce power seemingly out of thin air............

So, when somebody claims they've built an OU machine, the first thing they want to know is if it could possibly used to build that black box. This is why so many people are asking for numbers - if we have a single number which proves to us beyond all doubt that this device has a COP > 1, then what does at matter what other people think, orthodox or not? We have our black box, and we're happy at that..........

Tesla obviously had a brilliant imagination, and huge dreams. However, he wasn't averse to numbers. Indeed, without numbers, he never would have stood a chance.

In short, we want to disprove their RF hypothesis with their own numbers, so that we can keep dreaming.

Agreed Zaydana

Amigo, you are right in so many ways when you got up your soapbox, but I thought you were a little bit petulent in your judgements of "orthodox" science. Tesla, the very man we all hold in high respect, was a great man who excelled in "orthodox" science, and was also luckily graced with vision, intuition and wisdom. Those are personal traits, not something easily, if ever learned.

Tesla may have "visualised" his greatests inventions through "imagination", but his imaginings were fired and tempered by his great "orthodox" scientific reasoning.

Like I said, KneeDeep....... I hate numbers and calculations, but they are essential, not just to science, but to everyone, everyday of our lives!

Amigo, you are right in saying that this obsession with "closed loops" is a distraction.

You know I'm a skeptic, because I have openly said so, on numerous occasions. What I find surprising here, in this forum, is how many "believers" seem to proffer up the most inane observances followed by some brazen statement like "all we need to do now is close the loop from the output to the input and we have a self sustaining apparatus. Only then will we prove we have O/U". or "To be O/U, a machine must be self sustaining."

Statements like these in themselves are already "Orthodox" in their attempt to proscribe what "should be" as opposed to what "may" be or "is". Such statements seem to be borne from the obvious, but they can preclude the non-obvious!

As a skeptic, I want to be proved wrong, not just told I'm wrong!  As an active skeptic, KneeDeep, I have a strong passion in proving myself wrong! And believe me, I'm wrong a lot!     , just ask my wife 

Keep asking the Questions Amigo, please try not to judge the rest of us toads too harshly, we're only frogs, I mean human. KneeDeep

[zaydana]

While I agree that Dr. Stiffler probably should have gone about discussing his device in a rather different way, I think the thing that so many people are missing with this circuit is that just because there is less measurable electricity running through the LEDs than being input into the circuit, doesn't mean that the circuit isn't overunity. That may be how traditionally you would measure such things, but it won't necessarily work if we are dealing with something non-traditional.

What really matters is the difference between the light emitted for a certain voltage/current signal with Dr. Stiffler's circuit, and the light emitted for the same voltage/current signal without it. Until somebody measures this difference, nobody is going to know just how the circuit stacks up to Dr. Stiffler's claims. And really, it doesn't matter what he claims in regards to what can be measured and what he achieves. What does matter is if what we observe the circuit doing.

I still haven't received my coils, probably due to the fact that i'm overseas and they'll take a while to ship. However, as soon as I do receive them, I'm going to make these measurements and post my results. But may I suggest that since it seems a few people have had some pretty decent light from the "Thomas Oscillator", somebody could run this test, so we can stop yabbering on about opinions and start talking results?

If this circuit has overunity as claimed, then i'd wager the key is that the LEDs are being powered by something new which we can't measure directly. However, knowing what amount of light the LEDs should emit without the new energy source allows us to indirectly measure how much energy is coming from the new source.

@Amigo - while you sound particularly averse to numbers, i'd say you'd be the prime candidate to try and make these measurements. You seem to have gotten pretty decent results, and if you could show that the LEDs are emitting light which isn't coming from the measured current * voltage, then it would go a long way to understanding what Tesla discovered a hundred years ago.

And if it turns out there is nothing and the numbers are all what current science predicts, then what the hell. At least we tried. And theres nothing stopping us from keeping on doing so.

[bolt]

I already explained in my earlier posts if you want to see a massive improvement then you must allow for super regen quenching to the oscillator circuit at around 5kH (akin TPU technology) as this will raise the gain of the amplifier to about a million effectively raising the Q to over 10,000. The effect should be extraordinary because this old hat technique was used over 50 years ago to boost radio sensitivity. However you can not tap into the feedback loop of the cold electricity until you add a third dimension ie a TPU stack of 3 coils as all you will see at 1D level is an apparent gain which can not be tapped or even properly measured. I believe the current first level dimension shown here recently is very real but only slight and without taking it to the third dimension it will always be disproved as hoax.

I wanted to add that an amplifier oscillator with super regen is basically a cold negative resistor when the loop load is left open. The gain is only limited by the noise which in semiconductors is quite high thus SM suggested much better performance would be seen in tubes.

Most active devices only support negative resistance over a short operating range. Therefore, as the DC operating point shifts, there comes a point at which the active device cannot provide any more negative resistance. A normal oscillator will settle just below this operating point and provide constant oscillations. A relaxation system cannot, because it will have extra components added to prevent this. When the limit operating point is reached, the active device will ?starve? and oscillations will just stop. The only option left is to discharge the circuit to its original DC conditions before starting all over again.