Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[DrStiffler]

IMHO anyone does this with DR STIFFLERS  work   the prize and recognition should go to the doc  that is what I will do  Chet    PS marco good thinking!!!

@All

The PCB for sale ('Will not give 3 watts") in order to do that you will need to parallel matched transistors with offset resistor to the base so that one does not swamp the others due to slight difference in vbe. If you want to go for a prize, I would suggest you use a proto board.

PLEASE NOTE! I am not myself interested in a prize, period. So if some one wants to work and do this (I have not released these higher power circuits) then please do.

My goal is not prize money, what I am after is not public known and should not be (other than peer acceptance), has nothing to do with our overall goals.

I will be happy to help in what transistors are required and/or how to configure a balanced drive, but think about multiple smaller units for things like HHO drivers.

[broli]

What you big boys are doing is way beyond my freshman's physics head, but I tried to somulate the circuit to potentially see what's going on...or this software can't handle this circuit or I did something wrong since I don't see anything usefull happening?



You can play with this yourself if you'd like by copy-pasting the following stuff in the "import"...

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/

Code Select Expand


$ 1 5.0E-6 24.228258192205157 50 5.0 50
l 64 416 64 320 0 1.0E-5 -1.009663273127126E-18
c 64 320 64 224 0 4.0E-10 -0.649536581230683
w 64 224 64 192 0
t 64 192 192 192 0 1 -19.34892634006661 0.6495365812306834 992.0
w 64 416 192 416 0
w 192 416 192 208 0
w 64 192 64 128 0
w 192 176 192 128 0
r 64 128 192 128 0 1000000.0
l 192 128 192 32 0 1.0E-5 -0.01921348390537858
l 192 128 288 128 0 0.0022 2.271919407036514E-28
d 288 128 368 128 0
w 288 128 288 208 0
d 288 208 368 208 0
w 192 416 480 416 0
w 192 32 480 32 0
w 480 416 480 112 0
d 672 112 672 32 0
c 480 112 480 32 0 1.0E-8 -19.998462921287544
c 544 112 544 32 0 1.0E-7 -19.998847190965655
c 608 112 608 32 0 1.0E-5 -19.999231460643767
r 480 112 544 112 0 0.01
r 544 112 608 112 0 0.01
r 608 112 672 112 0 0.01
r 672 112 752 112 0 0.01
r 672 32 752 32 0 0.01
r 672 32 608 32 0 0.01
r 608 32 544 32 0 0.01
r 544 32 480 32 0 0.01
v 752 112 752 32 0 0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
162 368 128 368 208 0 1.0 0.0 0.0


[DrStiffler]

Hi Dr. S.

I have been keeping up with many of the different forums here and have saved every page from
this one.  Great work.  (I feel sorry for you with the amount of "Mainstream" people that will not
accept what you're working on.)  I was working on the "TPU" ideals, but when I saw that this
device is a SPECIFIC PROOF of a concept that no in the academic area wants known, I had
to start cleaning up my breadboards and slide along.  Just to put it out there, for the people who
haven't seen what is being proven here, this ckt shows that a potential field IS NOT electron
flow.  I left off in collage in the 70's when a professor in the lab wouldn't accept that idea, even
though Tesla proved it long ago.  Dr Stiffler, you  have my thanks for putting me back on this path.

I'm going to replicate this in a few, and try many components, just to see how critical selection is.
(First transistor was 2N3904)  Osc. section was great, but no plugs yet.  What I am intending is
simple.  Instead of a motor, I will wind a "Step Down" transformer with very low capacitance from
primary to secondary.  Feed the primary with the single wire "Plug" source and then I can Ground
one lead of the secondary without draining the potential "Wave" coming up the wire.  If there is
any amount if increase, the output of the secondary should be able to power the Circuit.

I realize you may have done this already, and I have no desire for recognition.  This is for the
knowledge that man needs.  If I get the Circuit to self sustain, I'll post what I can here and will
make any documentation you desire available.  As far as I am concerned, this is your info, to
be used by you.  If I can add to it, I leave it up to you to disperse it as you see fit.  You have
a much better handle on this than I but I have been playing with related Ckts for 30 years and
would love to contribute.

Again, THANK-YOU.  (By The Way, I generated HHO with a Meyer Circuit that was modified
from the patent.  Interesting that the final Ckt was using the same ideas that yours does....)

Art

@Loner
Good Luck and hope you find something.

Yes I and a number of others have tried (I think) all possible ways and once you connect the output to ground (anywhere) it all goes away. You might want to look at one exciter's output being the supply for an identical exciter, but both need to float, feed the second back into the first. Oh, you will need to kick start one or the other.

Thanks for the interest.

[DrStiffler]

What you big boys are doing is way beyond my freshman's physics head, but I tried to somulate the circuit to potentially see what's going on...or this software can't handle this circuit or I did something wrong since I don't see anything usefull happening?



You can play with this yourself if you'd like by copy-pasting the following stuff in the "import"...

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/

Code Select Expand


$ 1 5.0E-6 24.228258192205157 50 5.0 50
l 64 416 64 320 0 1.0E-5 -1.009663273127126E-18
c 64 320 64 224 0 4.0E-10 -0.649536581230683
w 64 224 64 192 0
t 64 192 192 192 0 1 -19.34892634006661 0.6495365812306834 992.0
w 64 416 192 416 0
w 192 416 192 208 0
w 64 192 64 128 0
w 192 176 192 128 0
r 64 128 192 128 0 1000000.0
l 192 128 192 32 0 1.0E-5 -0.01921348390537858
l 192 128 288 128 0 0.0022 2.271919407036514E-28
d 288 128 368 128 0
w 288 128 288 208 0
d 288 208 368 208 0
w 192 416 480 416 0
w 192 32 480 32 0
w 480 416 480 112 0
d 672 112 672 32 0
c 480 112 480 32 0 1.0E-8 -19.998462921287544
c 544 112 544 32 0 1.0E-7 -19.998847190965655
c 608 112 608 32 0 1.0E-5 -19.999231460643767
r 480 112 544 112 0 0.01
r 544 112 608 112 0 0.01
r 608 112 672 112 0 0.01
r 672 112 752 112 0 0.01
r 672 32 752 32 0 0.01
r 672 32 608 32 0 0.01
r 608 32 544 32 0 0.01
r 544 32 480 32 0 0.01
v 752 112 752 32 0 0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
162 368 128 368 208 0 1.0 0.0 0.0


@broli
Great that you did this, but can I offer a few insights. The simulation software I use is a $7K pro package and it will not even begin to show a SEC Exciter.

Your ground return shown to the output stages is wrong, there is no solid ground. The connection to ground is capacitive and around 3.75pF. In fact in a properly constructed circuit, every point in the circuit has approx the same 3.75pF back to every other point. So replace you solid ground with 3.75pF and add 3.75pF from each point to every other point. A daunting task..................

[Loki67671]

@All
@Stephan

Ok guys we have been here before, many time and before I repeat it so no one has to go search for it let me openly state this.

"I do not at this time, trust an external lab to test and (Correctly) report on SEC testing"

Why? Because of feedback and statements from labs that I was dealing with to do some tests. I would rather have "John Q Public" start out backing me up. If you do it right, you can have a very high error factor and still get a good out come. In some case you can be off by 50% and still agree with me, Then and Only Then is it safe to ask them to put up or shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have NEVER made accurate internal measurements, (for one thing something we can not measure is in there) and as Loki says and I have said and as Plengo has found, things run different with devices hung off the exciters.

Light Level; three Scientists have stated that certain LED circuits produce more light than they should with a similar non-SEC input, BUT they say SEC is NOT OU, What? What do I not understand.

I and an independent associate have both after doing extensive calorimetry found excess heat up to 5 times input, SO WE ARE WRONG??? Because CalTech or someplace else did not report this it is not true?

If even five of you show excess heat >2 with home made instruments, we can call  them down big time.

Unless there is some instrument I have never heard of, connecting a wire and reading an output will NEVER show the TRUE SEC picture. Forget the DMM's the Scopes and the SA's for now, a light meter or a home made calorimeter from foam and a glass thermometer (some digital freak out big time) we can do it.                 

@All,
That is pretty much where I was going to go with my morning post today. I have tried so many different ways to get ACCURATE measurements in this and many, many, other circuits. DC is generally easy although some curves can be thrown at you there too!  In AC and specifically RF, regardless of what is tried it affects the tuning and therefore the system as a whole. When we are working on a radio this is or can be kept to acceptable levels. However in SEC, when I have to retune the circuit I have to move operation away from the unaltered circuit's, i.e. no meters or scopes, operational points. This of course means that I am now operating at a different point than desired. It is a rough reality but it is there nonetheless. So I could be, and have, screwed myself before I even got started. It just smacks of Heisenberg and the principal of uncertainty. If I directly measure it I appreciably alter it so then what REALLY did I measure? Likewise if I don't measure it then subjective interpretation is my operational mode and that can change with my attitude!

An interesting dilemma to be stuck in the middle of, no? It is certainly part of what drives me to investigate subjects like this. Challenging it is, impossible it is not! I believe that when Dr. Stiffler is ready to he will bring the heat. Be patient and study what you need to in order to fill in gaps if necessary. Gather materials and start building and experimenting if you aren't already. From my personal viewpoint consider yourselves in training right along with me.    I'm going to get some insulating foam and a brand new aluminum pot!  There are many very interesting things to explore here and now my number one goal is to gather NON INVASIVE data that corroborates what Dr. Stiffler has been saying. For the homebrewer this will probably be most easily accomplished by calorimetric measurements. I think even a professional or commercial outfit would likely do the same thing. But WE CAN report data that seems anomalous! If an engineer does that he may get reassigned or even let go. The board of directors does not care about physical phenomena, especially ones that could reduce their oil stocks to asswipe, it's all about the money. If someone in grant funded research comes off with these results how long do you think the money would be there. If the money disappears from a project where do you think the scientists involved are going? It is clear. We need to gather as many CREDIBLE independent reproductions of these data as possible and back Dr. Stiffler up. We all benefit that way and I am dedicated to doing so!

The WEEKEND HAS ARRIVED! Back to work!

Best regards to all,

Jim