Qualifications??????
michael Hannon
let's see it.
Here's an open invitation for the following people
to give us all the truth about how qualified they are to
act as authorities here on topics they attack:
Let's have a look-see at the education and
PUBLICATIONS (peer and otherwise) these
so-called "qualified experts" have to their credit.
Fred Kasner
Harry Conover
John Feiereisen
Bill Ward
Robert Erck
et all (any of the other numbnuts who claim they
areentitled to act as "authorities"here to "screen out"
topics for all our good.
Let's see YOUR QUALIFICATIONS
so that we can know exactly who it is that is slamming
topics
from people who have REAL credentials as well
(eg Col. Tom Bearden).
And don't give us this "you're not qualified" crap -
I've NEVER claimed any qualifications -
YOU HAVE.
LET'S SEE THEM, numbnuts.
WHAT RESEARCH HAVE YOU DONE, WHERE,
and WHAT DO YOU HAVE PUBLISHED in journals, etc.
regarding ANY topics, and by those researches and education,
what in them entitles you to consider yourselves as
authorities on the topics you refuse to allow meaningful
discussion of here?
OHannon
John Feiereisen
<big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
>OK status quo enforcers -
>let's see it.
And how much do people want to bet that Michael will *not* post his
qualifications for speaking on technical matters?
>Here's an open invitation for the following people
>to give us all the truth about how qualified they are to
>act as authorities here on topics they attack:
>Let's have a look-see at the education and
>PUBLICATIONS (peer and otherwise) these
>so-called "qualified experts" have to their credit.
I know this is going to sound like tooting my own horn, and will only
incite Michael (who has demonstrated comtempt for those with advanced
degrees) to hurl more obscenity-laden invectives, but here goes (I
used to have web pages listing all of this):
I have bachelor's, master's and PhD degrees in mechanical engineering.
My master's thesis title is "Design, Construction, and Testing of an
Engine-Fed Spray Chamber with Optical Access". My PhD thesis title is
"An Experimental Investigation of Turbomachine Blade Row
Aeromechanics".
My coursework during my master's program concentrated on
thermodynamics, combustion, and thermochemistry. My coursework during
my PhD program focused on fluid mechanics, both steady and usteady.
After my master's program I developed and tested lubricating oil
additives for a large west-coast oil company. Petroleum is boring. I
now do modeling and experiments examining just about the whole range
of fluid mechanics and heat transfer phenomena encountered in jet
engines.
The publications list I have in electronic form is:
(Sorry about the formatting.)
Unsteady Aerodynamic Forcing Functions: A Comparison Between Linear
Theory and Experiment, Feiereisen, J.M., Montgomery, M.D.,
and Fleeter, S., ASME paper 93-GT-141, presented at the 1993 ASME
International Gas Turbine EXPO, Cincinnati, OH, May,
1993.
Linear Theory Unsteady Aerodynamics: Stator Row Response to
Combined Vortical/Potential Forcing Functions Feiereisen, J.M., and
Fleeter, S., AIAA Paper AIAA-94-2974, presented at the 1994
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis,
IN, June, 1994.
Rotor Wake and Potential Forcing Functions, Including Blade Row
Interactions Johnston, R. T., Feiereisen, J. M., and Fleeter, S., AIAA
Paper AIAA-94-2975, presented at the 1994 AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis, IN, June, 1994.
Discrete Frequency Noise of a High-Speed IGV-Rotor Sawyer, S.,
Feiereisen, J.M., and Fleeter, S., AIAA Paper AIAA-95-2653,
presented at the 1995 AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, San Diego, CA, July, 1995.
The Influence of Rotor Detuning on Rotor-Stator Interaction
Generated Acoustic Response Sawyer, S., Feiereisen, J.M., and Fleeter,
S., AIAA Paper AIAA-96-1689, presented at the 1996 AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conference, State College, PA, May, 1996.
There are more, but this is a listing I generated before I graduated.
A search on "Feiereisen" in any AIAA or ASME database will turn up
numerous hits.
OK, Michael, your turn. You asked for mine, now let's see yours.
--
John
Email address munged. There are no digits in the real address.
Harry H Conover
: In <37BBCA62...@planet.nl>, michael Hannon
: <big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
:
: >OK status quo enforcers -
: >let's see it.
:
: And how much do people want to bet that Michael will *not* post his
: qualifications for speaking on technical matters?
I previously posted my qualifications after being similarly baited
by Mickey. (This is how he knows about my time spent in the design
of railway control systems, as well as some of the defense systems
that I contributed to the development of during a 14 year stint at
Raytheon. He's obviously forgotten the classified devense systems
work, likely because he can't visualize anything more complex than
what can be fabricated a trainee machinist, let alone the conceptual
design of a missile guidance system, an integrated fire control
system, or over-the-horizion radar.)
The only result of my posting was for Mickey to claim that I was bragging
and trying to intimidate him! This was what first confirmed by
suspicion that Mickey's elevator doesn't go all the way to the top
floor.
Recall the old saying about pearls and swine.
Harry C.
John Feiereisen
Conover) wrote:
>I previously posted my qualifications after being similarly baited
>by Mickey.
<...>
>The only result of my posting was for Mickey to claim that I was bragging
>and trying to intimidate him!
Which is *exactly* what I expect in response to my posting my
qualifications. Anyway, it gives people an idea of where my
statements are coming from. Also, I'm not ashamed to carry a "Dr." in
front of my name. In fact, I'm pretty damn proud of it, but I don't
wave it in peoples' faces on Usenet. When it does slip out, there's
always some clown who will try to use it in a pejorative manner.
These guys are always screaming about open discussion, posting of
facts, etc. I have nothing to hide. I use my real name. I used to
have a job title in my .sig, but some joker a while back took it as
bragging, so I removed it. But Michael asked for my qualifications
and I provided them. I would expect him to do the same. (Yeah,
right.)
I stand behind statements I make, and they're *mine*, not UTRC's. If
I make a misstatement, I expect (and encourage) that misstatement to
be pointed out so that I may learn from my mistakes. Sadly, the
people who often claim I've made such misstatements, when asked for
explicit examples, merely avoid examples and repeat the vague claims.
There's a certain frustrating level of hypocrisy there.
I think it was you, Harry, who said a while back that it is morally
wrong for technically knowledgable people to sit back and permit
hustlers and scam artists to prey on the public's technical ignorance.
Personally, I believe the promulgation of pseudoscience hurts
everybody, not only the financial victim of a particular scheme.
Pseudoscience is an interesting study into human nature, but other
than that, it's of little use beyond entertainment.
In short, I view pseudoscience as a virus. If it isn't treated early,
it spreads, infecting anybody who isn't 'immunized with knowledge'.
And hardcore purveyors of pseudoscience who form "personality cults"
and "sell distributorships" and the like are tantamount to terrorists
with biological weapons.
And judging by the pervasiveness of pseudoscience on the net and on
late night TV, I'm afraid the late Dr. Carl Sagan was right: We are
heading into another Dark Ages.
No doubt these statements of altruism will spawn more obscenity-laden
froth, but I guess that's what you've got to expect...
Fred Kasner
this stuff rather than posted it. That means, I guess, that you will get
an e-mail rather than a general post. I apologize. Accidents will
happen.
In any event since no person can be qualified in pseudoscience save one
who claims to believe in the pseudoscience this is a nonsense offer for
us to claim qualification. Grand Dummy such an offer is meaningless. It
is designed to demonstrate that only you and true believers are capable
of evaluating your pseudoscience.
FK
michael Hannon wrote:
>
> OK status quo enforcers -
> let's see it.
>
> Here's an open invitation for the following people
> to give us all the truth about how qualified they are to
> act as authorities here on topics they attack:
> Let's have a look-see at the education and
> PUBLICATIONS (peer and otherwise) these
> so-called "qualified experts" have to their credit.
>
Fred Kasner
appears to be an honest offer (honest if you trust the person who offers
it) this is it! Present your qualifications he says. But all he is
interested in is showing that those qualifications are NOT in the
pseudoscience he espouses. Since nobody can be qualified in
pseudoscience any attempt to present qualifications is doomed to failure
by the conditions of the offer. If mental defectiveness is a
qualification for pseudoscience then I suspect we have a true expert in
Michael Hannon.
John Feiereisen
<fka...@enteract.com> wrote:
>If ever there was a perfect example of an attempt to trap one by what
>appears to be an honest offer (honest if you trust the person who offers
>it) this is it! Present your qualifications he says. But all he is
>interested in is showing that those qualifications are NOT in the
>pseudoscience he espouses. Since nobody can be qualified in
>pseudoscience any attempt to present qualifications is doomed to failure
>by the conditions of the offer.
Yes, I'm sure Michael meant it as a trap as you say (after all, we
never studied Brown's gas flames in my combustion courses), but I
decided to give Michael the benefit of the doubt. I used to have it
all on some web pages, anyway. It's not like it's a secret.
So Michael, I expect you to post your educational and research
background as well. A list of your publications would be great, too.
Thanks.
Nonnaho
> qualifications for speaking on technical matters?
>
> >to give us all the truth about how qualified they are to
> >act as authorities here on topics they attack:
> >Let's have a look-see at the education and
> >PUBLICATIONS (peer and otherwise) these
> >so-called "qualified experts" have to their credit.
>
Wow! It sounds like you would be the person with the inside
scoop about the Tesla turbine machine. One might even say that you
would have it down to a science! :-)
--
Nonnaho
John Feiereisen
> Wow! It sounds like you would be the person with the inside
> scoop about the Tesla turbine machine. One might even say that you
> would have it down to a science! :-)
I tried to explain the Tesla turbine to Michael, but it was futile.
It was fun, but futile.
I particularly like Michael's statement that (quote not exact, but
close) "It is NOT viscous effects. It is FRICTION and ADHESION".
Darn. That shows you how much I know about turbines...
michael Hannon
Sorry, Dr. Loonie - I'm not the one claiming authority - you are.
Nothing in Bladelss turbine technology? Huh.
You sure had a lot to say about them
without any education or work in them.
(Although you say and understand them well. it is paradoxical when viewed
from your background - where did you get the authority to make the
comments you have about efficiency - Kellog's perhaps?)
Not any background in Quantum theory, no work in scalar electrostatics,
nothing in even water hammer, let alone hydrogen technologies, pulses,
.......
If I wanted to ask a question about bladed turbines, you be entitled to
repond with a reasonable amount of authority in certain areas, if you're
still current on your researches and updates.
.............
Otherwise, nothing much else, except letting you discuss how much you
think you know.
But the people here who came to talk about such things as the Meyer water
cell
really have no need to look to you for anything but perhaps a remote
scathing opinion, if they asked, which they haven't.
The rest on your part is sheer egomaniacal conjecture you think has merit,
but you don't have the authority in those fields to comment with no
background, so, basically, you've ridden your ego into noman's land
expecting applause..
None was due.
What do you think you're doing here in a hydrogen forum?
Ever done any hydrogen research?
If you have, you certainly haven't mentioned any.
OHannon
>
> Sorry, Dr.Loonie - I'm not the one claiming authority - you are.
> Nothing in Bladeless turbine technology (although you say you know and
> understand them well, which is paradoxical when viewed from your
> education
and
michael Hannon
Another copout by Kanserman.
I wonder why.
No wonder he finds quantum science a bit ......testy.......
No work in pulse technology with water???
What a pity.
You sure had a lot to say about the
Graneau water explosion experiments, though,
didn't you, Kanserman?
Steam generation caused by what?
Not even close.
Of course, we won't bring up the ON-TOPIC PUBLISHED credentials of the
Graneau brothers, who you love to make jokes about.
They've published a virtual LIBRARY of papers and books ON-TOPIC
about explosions in H2O -- and you?
Nothing?
How about high voltage characteristics of electrostatically exposed H2O?
Nothing?
Then exactly what is it you have to say with any authority about
one Stan Meyer and his electrostatic water fracturing device?
Nothing?
That's what I thought.
Tesla turbines???
Uhuh.
Anomolies in molecular and ionic hydrogen/oxygen research??
None?
Tsk, tsk, Kanserman.
The what are you doing slamming people and topics topics
you have no background in?
Entertaining yourself?
OHannon
Fred Kasner wrote:
> If ever there was a perfect example of an attempt to trap one by what
> appears to be an honest offer (honest if you trust the person who offers
> it) this is it! Present your qualifications he says. But all he is
> interested in is showing that those qualifications are NOT in the
> pseudoscience he espouses. Since nobody can be qualified in
> pseudoscience any attempt to present qualifications is doomed to failure
> by the conditions of the offer. If mental defectiveness is a
> qualification for pseudoscience then I suspect we have a true expert in
> Michael Hannon.
>
> FK
>
> michael Hannon wrote:
> >
> > OK status quo enforcers -
> > let's see it.
> >
> > Here's an open invitation for the following people
> > to give us all the truth about how qualified they are to
> > act as authorities here on topics they attack:
> > Let's have a look-see at the education and
> > PUBLICATIONS (peer and otherwise) these
> > so-called "qualified experts" have to their credit.
> >
michael Hannon
He was injured in Southeast Asia a couple decades ago probably doing dirty
tricks there as well, and they paturized him near Boston.
He has basically ZILCH as far as anything published,
has no background in anything to do with the topics he's slamming,
and he's probably embarassed by what he just saw in Dr. Firepants's scroll,
and for good reason - he aint done nothin much else, which is probably why he
is here - to make himself feel better by insulting people with his science
vocabulary
and lack of imaginative skills, except perhaps in insults.
OHannon.
Harry H Conover wrote:
> John Feiereisen (feie...@utrc1.utc.com) wrote:
> : In <37BBCA62...@planet.nl>, michael Hannon
> : <big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
> :
> : >OK status quo enforcers -
> : >let's see it.
> :
> : And how much do people want to bet that Michael will *not* post his
> : qualifications for speaking on technical matters?
> :
>
> I previously posted my qualifications after being similarly baited
> by Mickey. (This is how he knows about my time spent in the design
> of railway control systems, as well as some of the defense systems
> that I contributed to the development of during a 14 year stint at
> Raytheon. He's obviously forgotten the classified devense systems
> work, likely because he can't visualize anything more complex than
> what can be fabricated a trainee machinist, let alone the conceptual
> design of a missile guidance system, an integrated fire control
> system, or over-the-horizion radar.)
>
> The only result of my posting was for Mickey to claim that I was bragging
michael Hannon
they slam
really arent' qualified at all to speak with any authority about
those toipcs.
Surprise, surprise!
Frankly, I'm utterly shocked by what I see here.
Your mothers would be embarassed,
and your fathers humiliated.
michael Hannon wrote:
> OK status quo enforcers -
> let's see it.
>
Harry H Conover
:
: Sorry, Dr. Loonie - I'm not the one claiming authority - you are.
: Nothing in Bladelss turbine technology? Huh.
ROFL! John, welcome to the club.
If Mickey here's followups were not so damn predictable and funny,
he'd long since have been booted off the 'net. As it currently stands,
he is the resident 'Town Idiot' of the sci hierarchy. In science and
technology, we often approach our work with such intensity that our
day-to-day challenges make us loose sight of how truly lucky we are
to have our limited gifts.
I no longer wonder about Hannon. Still, you have to wonder about
anyone who would engage someone like Hannon to do R&D for them, if
in fact they actually exist. (Recall Conan-Doyle's book: "The
Redheaded League".)
Perhaps we should start a thread on who would actually hire
Hannon, and why?
Harry C.
Mitchell Swartz
Harry H Conover wrote:
> Perhaps we should start a thread on who would actually hire
> Hannon, and why?
> Harry C.
What a waste of creativity and energy.
Why don't you focus on science, Harry?
and start a thread on some of the more interesting hydrogen ideas?
Why don't you address the issues which you purport limit the
use of hydrogen as the ideal energy source - either by burning
it conventionally (to form water as is the intrinsic end-product
of biological energy transfer, too) or by fusion (as the sun does it)?
Mitchell Swartz
Harry H Conover
: Harry CONover worked for the railroad designing a switching system.
Right, but it wasn't a switching system. It was a hierarchial control
system for rapid transit. It currently runs Washington's WMATA, Atlanta's
MARTA, Sal Paulo, and a number of European rapid transit sytems. The
system architecture is currently described in all of the textbooks on
transportation system controls. The idea is based on a hierarchy of
control venues, consisting at the lowest level with automatic train
protection (ATP), slightly higher is automatic train operation (ATO)
and at the tope of the heap automatic train supervision (ATS).
While in the commercial world you don't publish many papers because
that doesn't help the bottom line, my contributions did earn be
promotion to the position of Manager of System Engineering at General
Railway Signal Company, a Unit of General Signal Corporation.
: He was injured in Southeast Asia a couple decades ago probably doing dirty
: tricks there as well, and they paturized him near Boston.
Well, sort of. But Mickey has the order of events mixed up. The 'Nam
episode was before I started works at GRS. I was there as a contractor
installing communications sytems and towers (hardly doing dirty tricks).
We were in the same environment and took identical risks with the GIs,
but without the benefits that Mickey now enjoys. I came home with a
6" plate in my leg and 10 or so screws -- no big deal, considering that
I could just as easily ended up missing an arm, leg, eye or even my
life. Stuff like this simply goes with the turf.
: He has basically ZILCH as far as anything published,
Indeed, not true. My first paper was published circa 1963 in the APS
jounal 'Review of Scientific Instruments'. It had to do with optical
emission spectroscopy. Later, I had several papers published dealing
with beam stabilization in a proton synchrotron. As I recall, all
were in peer reviewed APS journals, except for a much later paper
published describing the control system of the Washington Metro transit
system. (The later work at Ratheon was, for the most part classified.
You don't publish journal articles when your work is classified, except
in the classified journals. I have a couple of these. Still, you won't
find them using Netcrawler or Google.)
: has no background in anything to do with the topics he's slamming,
Is that a fact? I have a B.S./M.S. education in physics, with focus
on electromagnetics and classical mechanics. In addition, I have nearly
30 years experience in the design of control systems and military
electronics. Sorry, but I know of no place granting degrees in pseudo-
science, nor would I admit to holding one if I could.
Given this Mickey, what are your qualifications and educational background,
seeing that you are so ignorant that you didn't recognize F = d(mV)/dt
as the recognized DEFINITION of force?
: and he's probably embarassed by what he just saw in Dr. Firepants's scroll,
: and for good reason - he aint done nothin much else, which is probably why he
: is here - to make himself feel better by insulting people with his science
: vocabulary
: and lack of imaginative skills, except perhaps in insults.
That describes you much closer than me Mickey. I both admire and respect
John's background and qualifications. I am envious of his doctorate,
but thems the breaks of the game. He earned it, while I did not.
John has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. (Do you realize how rare
PhDs in ME are? I didn't think so.) He also is a professional expert
on turbines. Quite likely there are few people in the world as qualified
to express an opinion or a turbine, even a Tesla Turbine, as is he.
You should kneel down and kiss the man's feet when someone like John
provides you with information on the subject!
Still, we know you by now. You are clueless as ever, and have learned
absolutely nothing from participating in discussions with members of this
newsgroup for (what has it been now) four years?
Sadly, you never will. That's why you are being nominated for the
'Town Idiot' of the sci hierarchy. Put that on your resume.
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
:
: No work in pulse technology with water???
The Village Idiot again posts, with the same old same old content.
Perhaps it's time to sing Mickey's song again!
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
: Well, looks like those who claim they know so much about topics
: they slam
Still, more NULL content posts from Mickey. Why is no one surprised.
Out of curiousity I tempted to ask Mickey about Tom Bearden's
accomplishments, but I won't because the resulting post would be
pretty predictable.
Still, let me tickle him just a bit: Tom Bearden was just a grunt
pushed pusher for most of his life and then became a pseudo-scientist
enthuiast posting a lot of silly ideas on his website. Sadely, his life
has produced nothing of substance.
Did I miss anything?
Harry C.
Fred Kasner
thought was a clever trap. You can never satisfy him that you are
qualified to criticize his work. Why because he will always make
reference to stuff that no rational scientist would study in any event
except to demonstrate to himself that the stuff is total nonsense. And
notice nothing in the way of responding in the same vein of his own
qualifications as he requires of the scientists here.
Now this logical analysis does not require any further qualifications
other than to be more sane than the Grand Dummy.
FK
michael Hannon wrote:
>
... snip ...
Fred Kasner
saw through it immediately. I pointed it out as nothing more than an
attempted trap. And the Grand Dummy proved me right immediately. When
qualifications were presented by one poster he immediately discounted
all of them by referring to pseudoscience subjects as the only
appropriate qualifications. And as for his presenting his qualifications
he made it absolutely clear that he had no intention of posting any such
qualifications for himself.
He has thus demonstrated his complete and utter dishonesty as well as
craven cowardice. He will not even answer the challenge he threw down.
The Grand Dummy is a craven coward as well.
I never was interested in exchanging qualifications with a mental
defective.
FK
michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Well, look what we have here.
> Another copout by Kanserman.
> I wonder why.
> No wonder he finds quantum science a bit ......testy.......
>
> No work in pulse technology with water???
Fred Kasner
I'd not be too surprised to discover that the disability was the result
of shame at abandoning his comrades in arms while he fled in terror.
FK
michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Well, looks like those who claim they know so much about topics
> they slam
> really arent' qualified at all to speak with any authority about
> those toipcs.
> Surprise, surprise!
> Frankly, I'm utterly shocked by what I see here.
> Your mothers would be embarassed,
> and your fathers humiliated.
>
Harry H Conover
:
:
But Mitchell, as you well know pending breakthoughs in say CF, hydrogen
is not an energy source here on Earth. Production of intrinsic
molecular hydrogen requires more energy to be input than is obtained
by its use.
Perhaps someday a yet unrealized nuclear process will change that, as
you and I both hope for, but until such a nuclar process is demonstrable,
repeatible, and practical, it will remain only a distant concept.
Starting with C-Stellerator, I've lived through about five generations
of controlled fusion apparatus, not counting CF. No doubt valuable
information was learned from each of these, but in reality there is
still no 'Water Heater' (please don't hit the Hot Button because I
used this term, because for me it applied equally to hot fusion and
cold fusion results).
Note that I ignore the downside of a process that, if perfected, may
well let the Genie out of the bottle, since all of the newly discovered
energy will eventually degrade into atmospheric heat. In many respects,
this is a Genie that many of us don't want to see let out of the bottle,
much like fast fast fission.
Still, getting back to today's science: While I can't argue the fact
that hydrogen is the ultimate clean burning fuel, it's certainly far
from 'The Ideal Fuel' out of practical considerations that I don't believe
need repeating.
But all of this is very off topic in this particular thread, whose focus
is simply Mickey's baiting the educated professionals here to post their
credentials so he can sit back and try to trash them. So, if you would
like to discuss potential contributions of hydrogen to the energy scene,
let's start new thread, but if you'd like to set yourself up as a target
for Hannon's mindless comments, post an outline of your education,
experience and accomplishments here.
For best results, post your observations and conclusions about Tesla
Turbines, Brown's Gas, and Stan Meyer's WFC and his car that ran on
water first.
This provides Mickey with an opportunity to 'lock 'n load'.
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
: Still, let me tickle him just a bit: Tom Bearden was just a grunt
: pushed pusher for most of his life and then became a pseudo-scientist
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correction: Make that "pencil pusher".
Many thanks.
Harry C.
Mitchell Swartz
Harry H Conover wrote:
> :: > Perhaps we should start a thread on who would actually hire
> : > Hannon, and why?
> : > Harry C.
> :
> : What a waste of creativity and energy.
> :: Why don't you focus on science, Harry?
> :: and start a thread on some of the more interesting hydrogen ideas?
> :: Why don't you address the issues which you purport limit the
> : use of hydrogen as the ideal energy source - either by burning
> : it conventionally (to form water as is the intrinsic end-product
> : of biological energy transfer, too) or by fusion (as the sun does it)?
> :
>
> But Mitchell, as you well know pending breakthoughs in say CF, hydrogen
> is not an energy source here on Earth. Production of intrinsic
> molecular hydrogen requires more energy to be input than is obtained
> by its use.
You are WRONG IMO. Living systems use water as
an end product. Stars use helum-4 as an end product. Therefore, the best
boundary conditions are therefore known.
All your handwaving is therefore probably wrong.
Hydrogen can -- and will -- be made into a clean fuel.
Gasoline also takes more energy input than you get out to make.
You just dont want tio fairly count that fact, or that it is a dwindling
resource,
[Why dont you want to fairly count how many joules it really took to
make it.]
=========================================
> Perhaps someday a yet unrealized nuclear process will change that, as
> you and I both hope for, but until such a nuclar process is demonstrable,
> repeatible, and practical, it will remain only a distant concept.
> Starting with C-Stellerator, I've lived through about five generations
> of controlled fusion apparatus, not counting CF. No doubt valuable
> information was learned from each of these, but in reality there is
> still no 'Water Heater' (please don't hit the Hot Button because I
> used this term, because for me it applied equally to hot fusion and
> cold fusion results).
More nonsense. You should have gotten a library card, and read
those articles, Harry, and you would have found that every experiment
that made excess heat, in fact every experiment that made heat, was
a "water heater". Your mantra is BS. It is the same low wattage
mantra of the peanut gallery who are nearly all too lazy to actually
read the copious references, and based on postings really have no
background beside their 'hot air'. [Yourself not included].
============================================
> Note that I ignore the downside of a process that, if perfected, may
> well let the Genie out of the bottle, since all of the newly discovered
> energy will eventually degrade into atmospheric heat. In many respects,
> this is a Genie that many of us don't want to see let out of the bottle,
> much like fast fast fission.
What you ignored was my suggestion that you take your negativism
atgainst hydrogen as a fuel and fusion and either make 'lemonaide' or leave
those who are trying to do science alone from your endless taunts with
the rest of the peanut gallery.
[rest zipped because it has nothing to do with fusion or hydrogen]
Have a good day.
Mitchell Swartz
Stephen Burkart
<snip>
: I no longer wonder about Hannon. Still, you have to wonder about
: anyone who would engage someone like Hannon to do R&D for them, if
: in fact they actually exist. (Recall Conan-Doyle's book: "The
: Redheaded League".)
:
: Perhaps we should start a thread on who would actually hire
: Hannon, and why?
:
: Harry C.
Well, if you're into half-assed concepts rapped around failed
or non-existant technologies- like say, Tesla Turbine powered
Browns Gas dirigibles- you might.
Bill Ward
Michael, although I feel honored and privileged to be mentioned in the
above short list, I have not discussed, and do not intend to discuss,
my credentials. My opinions and comments stand on their own merits.
Feel free to believe I am not qualified for anything at all. I'll be
crushed, but I'll try to get over it somehow.
<snip>
Regards,
Bill Ward
John Feiereisen
Conover) wrote:
>michael Hannon (big.b...@planet.nl) wrote:
>:
>: Sorry, Dr. Loonie - I'm not the one claiming authority - you are.
>: Nothing in Bladelss turbine technology? Huh.
>ROFL! John, welcome to the club.
Thanks. But I'm anything but a new member.
Ya gotta love his "Bladelss turbine technology" statement, as if he's
an expert. (Huh? Huh, punk? Have you ever BUILT a Tesla turbine?
just like Huh? Huh, punk? Have you ever SEEN a Brown's gas flame?)
From stuff on the TEBA web site, it looks like Michael has machined a
disk on a shaft and spun it with compressed air. Yippee. He's also
told us right here that he's blown himself up (requiring a trip to the
hospital) during his 'research' on Brown's gas. He's definitely
chronic. And while I'm sure he sees himself as the consummate
researcher, the rest of the world sees him as you and I do.
To be ridiculed by people like Michael, well, I wear that as a badge
of honor.
John Feiereisen
Conover) wrote:
>John has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. (Do you realize how rare
>PhDs in ME are? I didn't think so.) He also is a professional expert
>on turbines. Quite likely there are few people in the world as qualified
>to express an opinion or a turbine, even a Tesla Turbine, as is he.
>You should kneel down and kiss the man's feet when someone like John
>provides you with information on the subject!
Thanks for the blush, Harry. Around here I work with PhDs in all
sorts of disciplines, and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people
in my company who have orders of magnitude more experience with (and
understanding of) turbomachinery than do I. On a relative scale here,
I'm a neophyte. There are many master's and bachelor's people around
here who awe me with their work, and there are lots of machinists and
technicians without college decrees of any kind whom I envy for their
knowledge and abilities. We all have "knowledge spikes" in our own
particular areas of the spectrum.
While I expect people like Michael to stay stuck on my "Dr.", I like
to leave it out of informal discussions such as on Usenet, as prefer
to let my words and ideas speak for themselves.
On Usenet, we all have equal voices. You, me, Michael, etc. Only our
words reach the reader, not our degrees. Yes, knowing the educational
and work background of the writer can help interpret what is being
written. But the *content* of the posting is what really counts.
Stephen Burkart
: See, everyone, I was exactly correct in the Grand Dummy's laying what he
: thought was a clever trap. You can never satisfy him that you are
: qualified to criticize his work.
I beg to differ: there is to date not one Hannon-built Tesla Turbine.
His "research" and "development" efforts (LOL!) produced nothing.
His threats produced nothing.
Case closed. Hannon has no credentials in any relevant or irrelevant
field. I am puzzled as to why you gentlemen respond to him.
michael Hannon
authority on -
and he is right about one thing - he has opinions that he expresses in his
comments.
Is he qualified to comment as an expert in any of the topics he has tried
to nail here,
such as Aethergas and its anomolous properties??
I don't think so.
So, if that is the truth,
what is his pseudoexpert opinion worth related to those topics?
About the same as any other non-expert's opinion about anything.
Is he scientifically qualified to label as fraud any of the topics and
people
he slams and discredits here?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
He's just another engineer with no background in the topics he slams
who'd like us to believe he's qualified to have an opinion worth
considering as informed.
Another pseudoexpert pretending to be more qualified than he is
in order to discredit particular topics.
OHannon
michael Hannon
outside the mainstream involving quantum physics, dielectrics,
high voltage cells, anomolous conditions in hydrogen and oxygen.
It's really amazing how little any of these people
who claim they are here to "help" and "guide" the "uninformed"
here have as qualifications in the topics they claim to be
entitled to guide anyone here in.
Some of the credentials are impressive - in the fields they are
in,
but what that has to do with being qualified to speak about the
specific topics which are regularly attacked here by those who
have those specific credentials outside those topics can only be
found in their imaginations.
So far, there is NO ONE here who has shown ANY real
qualifications
to discuss those topics as ANY form of authority.
Who'da thunk it?
The way these guys talk, you'd think they were seasoned experts
in the
fields they actively discredit like pitbulls in heat.
Boy, we sure have a lot of hot air balloons around this NG
pseudoanalyzing topics they have no real qualifications in.
OHannon
michael Hannon wrote:
Harry H Conover
: I gues we all can see what Mr. Ward is qualified to act here as an
: authority on -
: and he is right about one thing - he has opinions that he expresses in his
: comments.
: Is he qualified to comment as an expert in any of the topics he has tried
: to nail here,
: such as Aethergas and its anomolous properties??
:
: I don't think so.
Still, who cares? Since it is evident that you cannot respond to the
issues on a technical/scientific plane, you have no standing in any
sci hierarchy newsgroup.
When next you hear someone refer to the low signal/noise ratio in these
newsgroups as detracting from their value, realize that your post fall
into the mainstream of the noise. Most of us here read you posts as
saying: "babble, babble...blather...obscenity...babble, babble."
Your posts will never compare to those of Archie Pu or Cagle, so
you'll never be considered for a Net Kook of the Month nomination.
Resign yourself to the fact that you're posts are simply noise.
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
: Quite an array of pseudo-qualifications for commentary on topics
: outside the mainstream involving quantum physics, dielectrics,
: high voltage cells, anomolous conditions in hydrogen and oxygen.
: It's really amazing how little any of these people
: who claim they are here to "help" and "guide" the "uninformed"
: here have as qualifications in the topics they claim to be
: entitled to guide anyone here in.
Since a vast majority of the posts here do not require anything
more than a superficial knowledge of these specialities, you
criticism is misplaced.
For example, when did anyone post anything on this newsgroup having
to do with "high voltage cells", whatever you believe they are.
There is no field in mainstram physics relating to "anomolous conditions
in hydrogen and oxygen", an the phrase itself is as close to an
oxymore as I have even seen you post here.
Go away. You're posting in the wrong venue. Try one of the alt newsgrups.
You might even escape being considered an embarassing joke there!
Harry C.
p.s. How is the "Rigid Airship" program coming along? Have Roy and
Beano caught up with you yet? (Frankly, were I you I be far
more worried about the VA catching up with me!) How is your
"research" progressing <ROFL>?
michael Hannon
> michael Hannon (big.b...@planet.nl) wrote:
> : Quite an array of pseudo-qualifications for commentary on topics
> : outside the mainstream involving quantum physics, dielectrics,
> : high voltage cells, anomolous conditions in hydrogen and oxygen.
> : It's really amazing how little any of these people
> : who claim they are here to "help" and "guide" the "uninformed"
> : here have as qualifications in the topics they claim to be
> : entitled to guide anyone here in.
>
> Since a vast majority of the posts here do not require anything
> more than a superficial knowledge of these specialities, you
> criticism is misplaced.
> For example, when did anyone post anything on this newsgroup having
> to do with "high voltage cells", whatever you believe they are.
I think this above commentaries say about all that needs to be said about
the validity of Mr. CONover's response. That's what the central device in the
Meyer water fracturing system IS, in fact, Mr. CONover.
Thanks for proving my point.
You are the one, I recall, who was laughing about Meyer's pulsating DC powered
toroid step-up transformaer as being "laughably impossible" as well, when every
stinking car made in this world (except a few exotics) uses EXACTLY that same
type of pulsating DC transformer (it's called the ignition coil, invented by
one Nicola Tesla, I might add), and has for DECADES.
> There is no field in mainstram physics relating to "anomolous conditions
> in hydrogen and oxygen", an the phrase itself is as close to an
> oxymore as I have even seen you post here.
Is that right?
I suggest you examine at the very least EXACTLY such distortions which have
been noted in water molecules by various sources, such as in Puharich's patent,
and also strongly recommend that you look at George Wiseman's site in which it
is noted:
We found, as we'd expect, oxygen gas being formed on the
positive side of each plate and hydrogen gas being formed
on the negative side of each plate but we also saw a third
ASTONISHING thing.
We can see (and we see it every time) a THIRD gas being
formed exactly in the middle BETWEEN the plates . . . in the fluid itself.
There is no connection between the bubbles coming off the
plates and the line of bubbles coming out of the fluid; the
fluid is clear. When very high amperage is used, the line of
bubbles forms faster and at first assumes a bowed shape,
before stabilizing as a straight line in the middle of each cell.
This is where we figure the actual Brown's Gas forms (water
that has absorbed enough actual electrical energy to become
a gas that is not steam).
You have never seen THIS in your high school physics class.
I can see gas being formed exactly midway BETWEEN the plates in my transparent
series-cell electrolyzers. It starts as
a line of bubbles from the top to the bottom of the cell, so
solid that it looks like another plate. This line of bubbles becomes visible in
about three seconds from the time the electrolyzer is turned on. The line of
bubbles then widens till it meets the bubbles being formed on the plates and
the cell
is full of bubbles (this takes about eleven seconds). I think
the gas formed in the fluid is the Brown's Gas.
My new theory of Brown's gas is 'electrically expanded water.'
> Go away. You're posting in the wrong venue. Try one of the alt newsgrups.
> You might even escape being considered an embarassing joke there!
Sorry, Mr. CONover, but the little masquerade you've been pulling on everyone
here is over. You're barely qualified, as indicated by your own post above, to
comment on the topiocs you have been attacking here for years, and anyone
paying attention can see that.
You don't even consider hydrogen a worthwhile topics for discussion here,
and you're telling ME to go away?
Uh uh, Mr. CONover.
The patent draft which was started this week (and believe me, after writing my
own, I can say it is a distinct pleasure to hand over that work to a well-paid
pro with years of experience for the doing, while I keep refining the
prototypes) is also ON-TOPIC for this NG, which means I'm a HYDROGEN INVENTOR
now, and no way you're getting me out of here, CONman.
How many patents do you have, Mr. CONover?
Any have anything to do with HYDROGEN?
I didn't think so.
>
>
> Harry C.
>
> p.s. How is the "Rigid Airship" program coming along? Have Roy and
> Beano caught up with you yet? (Frankly, were I you I be far
> more worried about the VA catching up with me!) How is your
> "research" progressing <ROFL>?
The first of three (3) patent application drafts was begun this week after a
conference with the lawyer and his engineer, who spent over 4 hours with me on
Friday here.
I don't work for Rigid Airship Design NV.
Never did.
Never even applied to work for them.
Any doubts anyone may have about the VA knowing what I'm doing can be taken up
with the Reno Veterans hospital. If you keep insinuating that I am trying to
hide something from them (don't they call that slander?), Mr. CONover, why
don't you call them and ask?
They won't tell you anything (VA files are confidential), but then you can tell
everyone here that there is no information at all available from the VA on me,
and then you can start with the same swill your buddy Burkart did about my not
even being a Viet Nam veteran.
I will request once again that the people in which there is text being posted
which could be proven damaging to them please not be included in further
discussions here, and elsewhere. Doing so will be at the source's own risk.
I'll include your post today with the others I'm handing over to a concerned
person I know here who has a handful of lawyers he is showing these as well.
Have a nice day, CONman.
OHannon
A word of advice, CONman.
Don't fuck with Magicians.
michael Hannon
> michael Hannon (big.b...@planet.nl) wrote:
> : I gues we all can see what Mr. Ward is qualified to act here as an
> : authority on -
> : and he is right about one thing - he has opinions that he expresses in his
> : comments.
> : Is he qualified to comment as an expert in any of the topics he has tried
> : to nail here,
> : such as Aethergas and its anomolous properties??
> :
> : I don't think so.
>
> Still, who cares? Since it is evident that you cannot respond to the
> issues on a technical/scientific plane, you have no standing in any
> sci hierarchy newsgroup.
>
BOO, HOO, CONman.
I never asked for "standing," whatever you claim that is.
I have never claimed to be any type of authority here at all,
and never will.
I suggest you take a hard look at yourself and your numbnut buddies here,
though.
You have all claimed to be here as "science types" to keep the record straight
about topics you haven't got a CLUE about.
If you recall, I have posted more than once here my statements about what I do
and do not know.
I believe one of the threads was called I Do Not Know."
Drag it up and compare what I said to the post you made of Feynman recently,
which was a nice PR stunt for yourself, but everyone herealready knows that was
all it was, because you think, and try to get others to believe it here, that
you're some kind of authority on hydrogen, when you are anything BUT one.
You're a joke, Mr. CONman.
People can, and are, starting to see right through your charade here.
Just because you know some science you learned at a college
doesn't make you any more a scientist than someone out there
who is doing research you are NEVER involved in.
You are an armchair scientist, CONman.
A lot of hot air, and not much else.
If someone out there needs to know the figures
on some mainstream topic, they can ask you, and you'll look them up,
which they could themselves just as well,
but much more than such cursory roles here you are incapable of doing.
You cannot speak one word on Aethergas(BG) withoutit being nothing but
backgroundless opinion that you are trying to pass off here as
qualified commentary, on a subject you know NOTHING about
other than hearsay.
You're an authentic pseudoexpert in Aethergas, the Meyer Cell, and a lot of
other topics you work hard at discrediting here, CONman.
Guess what - we're on to you and your pals, bigtime.
YOU are the egotistical morons claiming knowledge about topics you know nothing
about, and YOU are the ones who KNOW what the rules for science require in order
to make ANY statements, and it is YOU who don't pay any attention to those same
rules here, not me.
OHannon
Harry H Conover
: > to do with "high voltage cells", whatever you believe they are.
:
: I think this above commentaries say about all that needs to be said about
: the validity of Mr. CONover's response. That's what the central device in the
: Meyer water fracturing system IS, in fact, Mr. CONover.
Oh, that's a "High Voltage Cell" eh, dumb me! :-) I would have sword that
Meyer's device was simply an electrolysis cell with peculiarly configured
electrodes and driven by a terribly mismatched impedance power source.
: Thanks for proving my point.
You welcome, but I believe it was you who just proved mine, but it will take
you some time to realize that.
: You are the one, I recall, who was laughing about Meyer's pulsating DC
: powered toroid step-up transformaer as being "laughably impossible" as
: well, when every stinking car made in this world (except a few exotics)
: uses EXACTLY that same
: type of pulsating DC transformer (it's called the ignition coil, invented by
: one Nicola Tesla, I might add), and has for DECADES.
Hate to shatter your illusion, Mickey, ignition coils are derivitives of
classic induction coils, which existed long before Tesla was even conceived.
Most typical of these is the Ruhmkorff Coil, but other variants exist under
assorted names (none of which is Tesla).
You might pause and the time to learn the difference between induction
coils and transformers, since they are entirely different beasts.
Of course, with your limited comprehension, I can appreciate how you
might believe they're the same thing.
Again, just for the record, the reason that you cannot run a transformer
on pulsating d.c. is because of the residual magnetism that will remain
in the transformer's ferromagnetic core after the current is removed.
A reverse current flow is required to overcome this residual magnetism
and exploit the full magnetic flux range of the transformer core.
Induction coils work on a far different principle than do transformers,
by exploiting the properties of a rapid dI/dt while using a rather limited
range of their core's magnetic flux potential. While valuable for certain
specialized applications, their nature limits them to niche applications.
This is why you see transformers, not induction coils, used in energy
distribution applictions and most power supplies.
:
: > There is no field in mainstram physics relating to "anomolous conditions
: > in hydrogen and oxygen", an the phrase itself is as close to an
: > oxymore as I have even seen you post here.
:
: Is that right?
Yes.
: I suggest you examine at the very least EXACTLY such distortions which have
: been noted in water molecules by various sources, such as in Puharich's patent,
: and also strongly recommend that you look at George Wiseman's site in which it
: is noted:
Please, spare us the nonsense contained in Wiseman's site! ;-)
: We found, as we'd expect, oxygen gas being formed on the
: positive side of each plate and hydrogen gas being formed
: on the negative side of each plate but we also saw a third
: ASTONISHING thing.
: We can see (and we see it every time) a THIRD gas being
: formed exactly in the middle BETWEEN the plates . . . in the fluid itself.
Amazing! Some people have observed similar things to take place in
ice cubes. How do you know it isn't the same thing?
: There is no connection between the bubbles coming off the
: plates and the line of bubbles coming out of the fluid; the
: fluid is clear. When very high amperage is used, the line of
: bubbles forms faster and at first assumes a bowed shape,
: before stabilizing as a straight line in the middle of each cell.
Truly amazing. NOT. Perhaps it's Goofy-Gas, Sci-Fi-Gas, or simply
disolved air or water vapor. Until it's analyzed and found to be
remarkable in some way, does anyone care?
[babble snipped]
: I will request once again that the people in which there is text being posted
: which could be proven damaging to them please not be included in further
: discussions here, and elsewhere. Doing so will be at the source's own risk.
: I'll include your post today with the others I'm handing over to a concerned
: person I know here who has a handful of lawyers he is showing these as well.
Do that. Give my regards to Roy and Benno (Beano?) as well.
: A word of advice, CONman.
:
: Don't fuck with Magicians.
Good advice Mickey, 'cause as you've no doubt figured out based on that
comment, I am one. (International Brotherhood of Magicians, member of the
Order of Merlin.)
Also, been in professional pyrotechnics for over 30 years, and am licensed
for this in 5 states. (Want to fuck with Pyros...Not me.)
Currently working on my USCG. 6-pack license, so I can captain charter
boats, as well...
Are there any other of my hobby activities that you'd like to expose?
If so, feel free. Unlike you, I have little in my background that
requires concealment.
So, for now... Sim Sala Bim, Fire in the Hole, Cast Off, Hoist
the Sheets, and Prepare to Come-About!
Harry C.
p.s. You can't control the wind, but you can always adjust the
sheets.
michael Hannon
How come?
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should start a thread on who would actually hire
> > Hannon, and why?
> > Harry C.
>
> What a waste of creativity and energy.
>
> Why don't you focus on science, Harry?
>
> and start a thread on some of the more interesting hydrogen ideas?
>
> Why don't you address the issues which you purport limit the
> use of hydrogen as the ideal energy source - either by burning
> it conventionally (to form water as is the intrinsic end-product
> of biological energy transfer, too) or by fusion (as the sun does it)?
>
> Mitchell Swartz
michael Hannon
and what people are working on. If we want a pseudoexpert opinion, we know who to
ask.
In the meantime, what's up these days in CF?
Some of us are too busy with our own projects to review everything else, so if you
up to it, I'm game for some earsfull.
OHannon
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
michael Hannon
Fred Kasner wrote:
> Copout? You were the person who raised the qualifications straw man. I
> saw through it immediately.
Uhhuh, which is why you immediately dove for the cat's bed under the sofa.
And, your latest research findings on the thermodynamics of antimatter?
How about a simple essay on the presence of antimatter in electrochemical
reactions involving hydrogen?
You're the "expert," Kanserman.
Let's hear it.
How about nuclear precession in hydrogen - it's functions in current research
related to hydrogen as a fuel?
Nothing on that either, huh?
Exactly what is it that you DO know about hydrogen besides simple chemical
reactions in which such questions are never even asked?
Nothing?
What the hell are you doing here then, except to harass and otherwise insult and
discredit people and topics, other than an occasional question that can be
answered by a simple web search, or are they bronzing your head mold right now,
and you're just hanging around til it's done, so you can take it home and gaze
at the magnificence of that temple structure, even if you do say so yourself,
before you donate it to the university museum in memory of yourself?
Straw, anyone?
> I pointed it out as nothing more than an
> attempted trap. And the Grand Dummy proved me right immediately. When
> qualifications were presented by one poster he immediately discounted
> all of them by referring to pseudoscience subjects as the only
> appropriate qualifications. And as for his presenting his qualifications
> he made it absolutely clear that he had no intention of posting any such
> qualifications for himself.
>
> He has thus demonstrated his complete and utter dishonesty as well as
> craven cowardice. He will not even answer the challenge he threw down.
> The Grand Dummy is a craven coward as well.
Sticks and stones, Kanserman.
What's your last patent on - hustling coeds
with your grandiose demeanor?
I never was interested in exchanging qualifications with a mental
> defective.
Then stop talking to yourself.
> FK
michael Hannon
> michael Hannon (big.b...@planet.nl) wrote:
> : Harry H Conover wrote:
> : > For example, when did anyone post anything on this newsgroup having
> : > to do with "high voltage cells", whatever you believe they are.
> :
> : I think this above commentaries say about all that needs to be said about
> : the validity of Mr. CONover's response. That's what the central device in the
> : Meyer water fracturing system IS, in fact, Mr. CONover.
>
> Oh, that's a "High Voltage Cell" eh, dumb me! :-) I would have sword that
> Meyer's device was simply an electrolysis cell with peculiarly configured
> electrodes and driven by a terribly mismatched impedance power source.
>
Electrolysis cells require electrolyte, CONman.
The Meyer cell works best with uncontaminated water, but will run with tap water,
while the presence of any electrolyte will cause a current flow which will cause the
power supply to immediately shut down.
That's why you have no right to comment on the device, Mr. CONover.
You made a similar mistake interpreting a simple schematic of a step-up transformer,
as you did when you said that the Tesla coil was replaced by the flyback transformer,
when it IS one.
You may know a few terms you can throw at a subject, CONman, but basically you're
more ignorant than educated, which is why you are willing to spend so much time and
energy slamming subjects you know virtually nothing about, claiming you're doing it
for "science." Horsehockey, CONman - you're a dedicated debunker -
plain and simple.
>
> : Thanks for proving my point.
>
> You welcome, but I believe it was you who just proved mine, but it will take
> you some time to realize that.
Dream on.
> : You are the one, I recall, who was laughing about Meyer's pulsating DC
> : powered toroid step-up transformaer as being "laughably impossible" as
> : well, when every stinking car made in this world (except a few exotics)
> : uses EXACTLY that same
> : type of pulsating DC transformer (it's called the ignition coil, invented by
> : one Nicola Tesla, I might add), and has for DECADES.
>
> Hate to shatter your illusion, Mickey, ignition coils are derivitives of
> classic induction coils, which existed long before Tesla was even conceived.
> Most typical of these is the Ruhmkorff Coil, but other variants exist under
> assorted names (none of which is Tesla).
Another dream.
> You might pause and the time to learn the difference between induction
> coils and transformers, since they are entirely different beasts.
> Of course, with your limited comprehension, I can appreciate how you
> might believe they're the same thing.
Now you're actually stating that an ignition coil is nothing but an induction coil?
Most ignition coils are autotransformers, with a primary and secondary using a common
tap.They are, nevertheless, high voltage step-up transformers.
Besides that bit of classic CONman moronics, there lies the fact that you and a few
of your numbnut cronies were attacking the coil in the tested successful copy Meyer
output circuit from New Zealand as being incapable of creating high voltage, which is
in direct contradiction to what you just said above about ignition coils and their
"ancestry."
> Again, just for the record, the reason that you cannot run a transformer
> on pulsating d.c. is because of the residual magnetism that will remain
> in the transformer's ferromagnetic core after the current is removed.
> A reverse current flow is required to overcome this residual magnetism
> and exploit the full magnetic flux range of the transformer core.
Oh, really?????
Ever wonder why they put diodes across the wires on solenoids???
Once again, you are absolutely wrong BIGTIME, CONman.
What you just stated is a HUGE uninformed load of crap.
Anyone who knows inductors can tell you that,
and besides, a transformer IS an inductor.
Ath thoon as duh puwse stops wunning in dah coil, thupid,
the fiewd it biwt up cowapses an' thendth another puwse
back thwuw dah coil, dummy.
Where did you learn your induction science -
in the men's room at a truck stop?
I'll simply let Mr. CONman's flawlessly stupid diagnosis of an inductor
speak for itself.
Need anyone ask how qualified he is to speak on them?
> Induction coils work on a far different principle than do transformers,
> by exploiting the properties of a rapid dI/dt
That's a quick response time to current over time, folks.
It makes CONman sound like he knows what he's talking about, which he doesn't.
Any look into an electronics supply catalog (take digi-key for example) will give you
the range on induction coils (as CONman wants to separate them from transformers,
even though they are both inductive devices) as well as those on transformers).
They operate in exactly the same ranges, and for good reason -
one can be used to tune the other, as they are used in the Meyer output circuit.
> while using a rather limited
> range of their core's magnetic flux potential. While valuable for certain
> specialized applications, their nature limits them to niche applications.
Wonderfully inaccurate.
Please continue with your own gravedigging, CONman.
> This is why you see transformers, not induction coils, used in energy
> distribution applictions and most power supplies.
Ah!
Fascinating.
Whart are those toroid windings in tall those computer power supplies - doughnuts?
> :
> : > There is no field in mainstram physics relating to "anomolous conditions
> : > in hydrogen and oxygen", an the phrase itself is as close to an
> : > oxymore as I have even seen you post here.
> :
> : Is that right?
>
> Yes.
Thanks again, CONman.
> : I suggest you examine at the very least EXACTLY such distortions which have
> : been noted in water molecules by various sources, such as in Puharich's patent,
> : and also strongly recommend that you look at George Wiseman's site in which it
> : is noted:
>
> Please, spare us the nonsense contained in Wiseman's site! ;-)
>
> : We found, as we'd expect, oxygen gas being formed on the
> : positive side of each plate and hydrogen gas being formed
> : on the negative side of each plate but we also saw a third
> : ASTONISHING thing.
> : We can see (and we see it every time) a THIRD gas being
> : formed exactly in the middle BETWEEN the plates . . . in the fluid itself.
>
> Amazing! Some people have observed similar things to take place in
> ice cubes. How do you know it isn't the same thing?
Apparently you think it is.
> : There is no connection between the bubbles coming off the
> : plates and the line of bubbles coming out of the fluid; the
> : fluid is clear. When very high amperage is used, the line of
> : bubbles forms faster and at first assumes a bowed shape,
> : before stabilizing as a straight line in the middle of each cell.
>
> Truly amazing. NOT. Perhaps it's Goofy-Gas, Sci-Fi-Gas, or simply
> disolved air or water vapor. Until it's analyzed and found to be
> remarkable in some way, does anyone care?
Yes, a lot of people do, including the inventor of the BG generator, William Rhodes
at Arizona State Univ., as well as other people with better credentials than you've
got, CONman.
It's called discriminative objective observation and research - something you know
very little about, from that armchair of yours..
> [babble snipped]
Thanks again for sparing us more of your sadly mistaken babble, CONman.
I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that pulsating DC
won't operate in a step-up transformer (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the
wall) take some off a bridge rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the
primary of a, say, 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
> : I will request once again that the people in which there is text being posted
> : which could be proven damaging to them please not be included in further
> : discussions here, and elsewhere. Doing so will be at the source's own risk.
> : I'll include your post today with the others I'm handing over to a concerned
> : person I know here who has a handful of lawyers he is showing these as well.
>
> Do that. Give my regards to Roy and Benno (Beano?) as well.
>
> : A word of advice, CONman.
> :
> : Don't fuck with Magicians.
>
> Good advice Mickey, 'cause as you've no doubt figured out based on that
> comment, I am one. (International Brotherhood of Magicians, member of the
> Order of Merlin.)
Sorry, CONman.
I mean REAL magicians,
not slight-of-hand punks like you.
You don't even know the difference, do you?
> Also, been in professional pyrotechnics for over 30 years, and am licensed
> for this in 5 states. (Want to fuck with Pyros...Not me.)
Good for you.
So what?
> Currently working on my USCG. 6-pack license, so I can captain charter
> boats, as well...
Wonderful.
While you're qualifying, try to pick up a simple book on induction, CONman.
In that ballpark, so far, you've been nothing but a dummy comedian.
> Are there any other of my hobby activities that you'd like to expose?
> If so, feel free. Unlike you, I have little in my background that
> requires concealment.
Uhhuh, or your present, right?
Tell us some more jokes, CONman.
> So, for now... Sim Sala Bim, Fire in the Hole, Cast Off, Hoist
> the Sheets, and Prepare to Come-About!
>
> Harry C.
>
> p.s. You can't control the wind, but you can always adjust the
> sheets.
There is no fair wind for one who does not know his destination.
A Royal Dutchman
Bill Ward
<big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
<snip irrelevancies>
>
>I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
>analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that pulsating DC
>won't operate in a step-up transformer (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the
>wall) take some off a bridge rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the
>primary of a, say, 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
>you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
Yeah, right, Michael. Feed 110V DC into the primary of the
transformer and watch it smoke till the breaker blows (unless the
rectifier bridge pops first). Thats a strange new use of the word
"work".
Kids, don't try this at home. The guy's a dangerous loon.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Harry H Conover
: schematic of a step-up transformer,
: as you did when you said that the Tesla
: coil was replaced by the flyback transformer,
: when it IS one.
ROFL. Case closed! You are trully named "The Grand Dummy," Mickey.
[remaining display of gross technical ignorance deleted]
Harry C.
Fred Kasner
qualifications of expertise, yet demand it of others. That is total
nonsense on your part. But what else could one expect from such a Grand
Dummy?
Thermodynamics of antimatter? What do you know of any aspect of
thermodynamics at all? And since thermodynamics is a statistically
significant science (not applicable to discrete particles) and
antimatter so far comes only is small samples things such as positrons
there is little hope of doing any thermo or statistical mechanics no
them. And then if we were to be exposed to any significant number of
antimatter particles I would want to be a galaxy away from the resultant
massive energy release. What dummy you are!
And since the energy needed to create antimatter from energy is
prohibitively expensive energetically I challenge YOU (don't tell me
about what some kook claims to have done in some garage) to tell me how
to create antimatter during electrolysis. To quote some stupid person I
know of "I think not." What an impossibly dumb Grand Dummy you truly
are.
And I challenge YOU to explain how nuclear precession has anything to do
with the chemical properties of hydrogen in attempts to use it as a
fuel. Is this something like using magnets attached to the fuel lines,
Grand Dummy? How pathetically misinformed and gullible you are to
swallow all this pseudoscience, Grand Dummy.
You've got to get your meds adjusted, Grand Dummy.
As for you, Grand Dummy you wouldn't understand the commitment of man to
one women for over 40 years. Your gutter mentality can only reflect your
disgusting mental morass when you attempt to villify me while we all
remember quite well your boasts about the grand fun you had in the
Nevada brothels. I am sure your perversions therein would be even
funnier than your feeble attempts to claim expertise via phonied
experiments on things that don't work. The subjects you claim are so
vital to all your interests just don't do what you say they do. Those
people I know who have access to enough funds to check such things
indicate to me that all those interpretations are so much hokum and what
physical phenomena are real are simple things that can be explained by
well known physics and chemistry.
FK
michael Hannon wrote:
>
> CaCA Poo Poo, Kanserman.
>
> Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> > Copout? You were the person who raised the qualifications straw man. I
> > saw through it immediately.
>
... snip more arrant nonsense from the Grand Dummy ...
Fred Kasner
See below\/
michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> > michael Hannon (big.b...@planet.nl) wrote:
> > : Harry H Conover wrote:
> > : > For example, when did anyone post anything on this newsgroup having
> > : > to do with "high voltage cells", whatever you believe they are.
> > :
> > : I think this above commentaries say about all that needs to be said about
> > : the validity of Mr. CONover's response. That's what the central device in the
> > : Meyer water fracturing system IS, in fact, Mr. CONover.
> >
> > Oh, that's a "High Voltage Cell" eh, dumb me! :-) I would have sword that
> > Meyer's device was simply an electrolysis cell with peculiarly configured
> > electrodes and driven by a terribly mismatched impedance power source.
> >
>
> Electrolysis cells require electrolyte, CONman.
> The Meyer cell works best with uncontaminated water, but will run with tap water,
> while the presence of any electrolyte will cause a current flow which will cause the
> power supply to immediately shut down.
> That's why you have no right to comment on the device, Mr. CONover.
There it is in all its impossible super stupidity! The Meyer cell run
best with uncomtaminated water. What then is his definition of
uncontaminated water? Clearly he doesn't think tap water is contaminated
because he says the cell runs with tap water. So I guess that he is
claiming that tap water has no electrolytes in it since he says the
presence of "any electrolyte will cause current flow which will cause
the power supply to immediately shut down."
What does the Grand Dummy think makes tap water different from
"uncontaminated water"?
What a pathetic imbecile he is! I guess he thinks that the difference
between "uncontaminated water" and "tap water" is an excess of pholgiton
or is it an excess of caloric?
Compared to very high purity water (frequently called conductivity
water) tap water is loaded with electrolytes.
Your are so stupid Grand Dummy that I wonder how you can permit yourself
to type such stuff into your computer!
FK
J. Snell
"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
just fine.
He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
In article <37c06cd9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
bward*REMOVETHIS*@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:32:39 +0200, michael Hannon
><big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
><snip irrelevancies>
>>
>>I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
>>analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that
pulsating DC
>>won't operate in a step-up transformer (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff
from the
>>wall) take some off a bridge rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into
the
>>primary of a, say, 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me
while
>>you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
>
>Yeah, right, Michael. Feed 110V DC into the primary of the
>transformer and watch it smoke till the breaker blows (unless the
>rectifier bridge pops first). Thats a strange new use of the word
>"work".
>
>Kids, don't try this at home. The guy's a dangerous loon.
>
>Regards,
>Bill Ward
--
J. Snell
http://www.freeyellow.com:8080/members7/watcher17/
J. Snell
>What a pathetic imbecile he is! I guess he thinks that the difference
>between "uncontaminated water" and "tap water" is an excess of pholgiton
>or is it an excess of caloric?
>
>Compared to very high purity water (frequently called conductivity
>water) tap water is loaded with electrolytes.
>
>Your are so stupid Grand Dummy that I wonder how you can permit yourself
>to type such stuff into your computer!
>
>FK
The conductive contaminants in tap water are in a low enough concentration in
normal tap water that the Meyer circuit can still mostly function.
Obviously, distilled water would be much better given that the Meyer circuit
shuts off if current begins to flow.
A deliberately added electrolyte (for electrolysis) would be in much higher
concentration in the water and would therefore cause total curcuit shutdown.
Once the adrenals start firing up around here, common sense and reason just go
popping right out the window.
Bill Ward
>
>"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
>just fine.
>
> He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
>
Doesn't have to be "pure" DC to burn out the transformer. The output
of a bridge rectifier fed from 120V 60Hz AC is full wave rectified DC
which essentially consists of DC with some harmonics (mostly 120Hz)
riding on it. The DC component will very quickly fry the primary of a
1KVA transformer if the breaker or diodes don't limit the current
first.
Some small special use (e.g. Class A coupling) transformers are
designed to handle a DC current component (milliamperes), but not AC
line power types.
He (and apparently you) simply doesn't know what he's talking about,
and could get someone hurt if they were to try his suggestion.
Basically he's proposing a dead short across the AC line through the
diode bridge and xformer primary. Not a good idea at all.
>
>In article <37c06cd9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>bward*REMOVETHIS*@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:32:39 +0200, michael Hannon
>><big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
>>
>><snip irrelevancies>
>>>
>>>I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
>>>analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that
>pulsating DC
>>>won't operate in a step-up transformer
BW> Below is the part I'm objecting to:
>>> (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the wall) take some off a bridge
>>> rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the primary of a, say,
>>> 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
>>> you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
BW> to which I replied:
>>
>>Yeah, right, Michael. Feed 110V DC into the primary of the
>>transformer and watch it smoke till the breaker blows (unless the
>>rectifier bridge pops first). Thats a strange new use of the word
>>"work".
>>
>>Kids, don't try this at home. The guy's a dangerous loon.
>>
I stand by my post. That's got to be one of the dumbest things he's
claimed yet. If you feel you just have to try it for yourself, be
careful to have a good current limiter or circuit breaker. It just
flat doesn't work.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Harry H Conover
:
: "Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written
: and it will drive a transformer
: just fine.
A course in electronics that includes a look at fundamental devices
like transformers will correct this erroneous opinion.
: He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
D.C. is D.C. It doesn't alternate the direction of current flow,
which is what distinguishes it as being D.C. Take a look at the
B-H and hysteresis curves for any ferromagnetic transformer core
materials and you'll immediately understand what every professional
engineer and most electronics technicians already know.
Put simply, current flow in one direction drives the ferromagnetic
core into near saturation, and when the current is removed, the core
flux returns only partially back to zero. Unless current in the
opposite direction is applied, reapplication of current in the same
direction can only drive the core flux from its residual value to
near saturation, which is only a small fraction of the total flux
range available. As a result, the transformer's secondary will only
see a small fraction of the total energy input produced as output,
the remainder being dissipated in the transformer itself.
With a transformer of any significant power handling capacity, application
of pulsating D.C. rather than A.C. will cause the device to burn-out.
Don't confuse this with a spark coil arrangement, which is designed
to produce high voltage pulses as a result of the collapse of the
magnetic flux within it's specially designed and constructed core.
This is a different concept than that of what today is termed a
transformer, and some, as even Hannon realizes (although he has no
idea why). These operate on a very similar basis to that of the
flyback "tranformer" in a modern TV set. (Actually, the flyback
transformer is a very unique and interesting device, as it combines
two distinctly separate electromagnetic concepts into one device.
It both acts as a transformer to drive the horizontal deflection
yoke, plus functions as an impulse or induction coil to produce
high voltage pulses that are rectified and used for the CRT
acceleration potential. Indeed, these are a remarkable invention.)
Tesla Coils fall into a totally different category, as they operate
on principles of resonance.
Harry C.
michael Hannon
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:32:39 +0200, michael Hannon
> <big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> <snip irrelevancies>
> >
> >I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
> >analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that pulsating DC
> >won't operate in a step-up transformer (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the
> >wall) take some off a bridge rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the
> >primary of a, say, 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
> >you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
>
> Yeah, right, Michael. Feed 110V DC into the primary of the
> transformer and watch it smoke till the breaker blows (unless the
> rectifier bridge pops first). Thats a strange new use of the word
> "work".
Don't tell us that another moronic post is headed this way!
That's PULSATING DC, you idiot.
You know - the kind that goes from 0 to 110 then back to ZERO
120 times/sec?
What have you been drinking, Mr. Ward - PCB's?
You're trying to tell us that 110v pulsating DC pumped into a
transformer with a 110vac (that's rms, by the way) primary
won't yield an output at the secondary, but fry the primary winding instead?
Lay off the cocaine, Mr. Ward.
OHannon
>
> Kids, don't try this at home. The guy's a dangerous loon.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Ward
michael Hannon
> On 23 Aug 1999 03:30:21 GMT, roa...@capital.net (J. Snell) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
> >just fine.
> >
> > He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
> >
> Doesn't have to be "pure" DC to burn out the transformer. The output
> of a bridge rectifier fed from 120V 60Hz AC is full wave rectified DC
> which essentially consists of DC with some harmonics (mostly 120Hz)
> riding on it. The DC component will very quickly fry the primary of a
> 1KVA transformer if the breaker or diodes don't limit the current
> first.
>
You're out of your numnut mind, Mr. Ward.
FLAT DC is what you're talking about,
not pulsating DC.
PULSATING DC output from a bridge rectifier run on AC
has NO flat DC component -
it varies from 0V to maximum and back again.
Are these morons on drugs or what?
How do I know?
I've run lots of transformers on pulsating DC,
and NEVER burned out a primary rated at the voltage in.
You're either lying, or nuts -
I say both.
OHannon
> Some small special use (e.g. Class A coupling) transformers are
> designed to handle a DC current component (milliamperes), but not AC
> line power types.
>
> He (and apparently you) simply doesn't know what he's talking about,
> and could get someone hurt if they were to try his suggestion.
> Basically he's proposing a dead short across the AC line through the
> diode bridge and xformer primary. Not a good idea at all.
El wacko adds more absurdity to his post.
OHannon
> >
> >In article <37c06cd9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> >bward*REMOVETHIS*@ix.netcom.com says...
> >>
> >>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:32:39 +0200, michael Hannon
> >><big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >><snip irrelevancies>
> >>>
> >>>I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
> >>>analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that
> >pulsating DC
> >>>won't operate in a step-up transformer
>
> BW> Below is the part I'm objecting to:
>
> >>> (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the wall) take some off a bridge
> >>> rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the primary of a, say,
> >>> 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
> >>> you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
>
> BW> to which I replied:
> >>
> >>Yeah, right, Michael. Feed 110V DC into the primary of the
> >>transformer and watch it smoke till the breaker blows (unless the
> >>rectifier bridge pops first). Thats a strange new use of the word
> >>"work".
> >>
> >>Kids, don't try this at home. The guy's a dangerous loon.
> >>
>
michael Hannon
> J. Snell (roa...@capital.net) wrote:
> :
> : "Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written
> : and it will drive a transformer
> : just fine.
>
> A course in electronics that includes a look at fundamental devices
> like transformers will correct this erroneous opinion.
>
> : He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
>
> D.C. is D.C. It doesn't alternate the direction of current flow,
> which is what distinguishes it as being D.C. Take a look at the
> B-H and hysteresis curves for any ferromagnetic transformer core
> materials and you'll immediately understand what every professional
> engineer and most electronics technicians already know.
>
You are a true moron, Capt. CONman.
A transformer run on pulsting dc from a bridge rectifier is doing no more work
than one run on 60Hz AC, hysteresis or not. YOU ARE BULLSHITTING, CONman.
> Put simply, current flow in one direction drives the ferromagnetic
> core into near saturation, and when the current is removed, the core
> flux returns only partially back to zero. Unless current in the
> opposite direction is applied, reapplication of current in the same
> direction can only drive the core flux from its residual value to
> near saturation, which is only a small fraction of the total flux
> range available. As a result, the transformer's secondary will only
> see a small fraction of the total energy input produced as output,
> the remainder being dissipated in the transformer itself.
Wonerful bullshit, Mr. CONover.
At 60 hz that transformer core would have to be solid (not laminated)
in order to heat up as you describe.
Have you ever seen a diagram of the ignition coil in a car?
Most of them are autotransformers (particularly those that ran on 12v
pulsating DC from the points) with a shared ground.
THEY DIDN'T BURN UP, asswipe.
You are in dreamland with this baloney, unless you're talking high current
levels in a transformer pushe to near its limit frequency wise already.
I've run 60 Hz AC stepup transformers on higher frequencies than 60 Hz
for long periods without a problem at their rated primary voltage. The basic
wire resistance in the primary limits the curerent, you nimrod.
No one here was positing that the output would be as good as AC in in an AC
transformer, but what you're talking about is absurd in MOST CASES
involving transformers not pushed to their limits. The standard laminated core
of today's basic transformer is capable of handling much higher frequencies
than 120 hz, if not pushed to their limits.
What a nimrod.
OHannon
michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
> michael Hannon (big.b...@planet.nl) wrote:
> : Harry H Conover wrote:
> :
> : You made a similar mistake interpreting a simple
> : schematic of a step-up transformer,
> : as you did when you said that the Tesla
> : coil was replaced by the flyback transformer,
> : when it IS one.
>
michael Hannon
these guys are suffering from Preparation H grade inflammation,
to be sure.
They're not playing with a full deck either - they take half of what was said and
attack it, knowing full well that they're attacking an inconsistently presented
version of a post.
Michael
J. Snell
where both positive and negative lobes appear above the zero line on the
scope.
The signal also has the added feature of a very short break in the
current between the lobes. This is caused by the fact that the rectifiers
won't pass a current when the voltage momentarily drops below 6/10 of a
volt.
You belief that a transformer core remains almost fully magnetized when
there's no current flowing is just wrong. For the record, the only thing
required to drive a transformer is a change in the strength of the
magnetic flux in the core. A complete reversal of of the flux is not
needed.
This is also why solenoids and relays have been functioning for so many
years now. Apply the current and it pulls on the little iron thingy. Take
away the current and the thingy drops away.
Put a D.C. current into the transformer and you can stick ferrous objects
to the core. Take that current away and they fall off. That means the
field went away. Got it?
Just to clear things up....
A tesla coil uses an unloaded secondary winding and takes advantage of
the open circuit to produce an extreme inductive voltage rise.
The same circuit with a steady load on the winding will only give a
normal, calculable transformer effect based on the turns ratio in the
windings.
In article <7prg5f$5...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net says...
>
>J. Snell (roa...@capital.net) wrote:
>:
>: "Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written
>: and it will drive a transformer
>: just fine.
>
>A course in electronics that includes a look at fundamental devices
>like transformers will correct this erroneous opinion.
>
>: He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
>
>D.C. is D.C. It doesn't alternate the direction of current flow,
>which is what distinguishes it as being D.C. Take a look at the
>B-H and hysteresis curves for any ferromagnetic transformer core
>materials and you'll immediately understand what every professional
>engineer and most electronics technicians already know.
>
>Put simply, current flow in one direction drives the ferromagnetic
>core into near saturation, and when the current is removed, the core
>flux returns only partially back to zero. Unless current in the
>opposite direction is applied, reapplication of current in the same
>direction can only drive the core flux from its residual value to
>near saturation, which is only a small fraction of the total flux
>range available. As a result, the transformer's secondary will only
>see a small fraction of the total energy input produced as output,
>the remainder being dissipated in the transformer itself.
>
>With a transformer of any significant power handling capacity,
application
>of pulsating D.C. rather than A.C. will cause the device to burn-out.
>
>Don't confuse this with a spark coil arrangement, which is designed
>to produce high voltage pulses as a result of the collapse of the
>magnetic flux within it's specially designed and constructed core.
>This is a different concept than that of what today is termed a
>transformer, and some, as even Hannon realizes (although he has no
>idea why). These operate on a very similar basis to that of the
>flyback "tranformer" in a modern TV set. (Actually, the flyback
>transformer is a very unique and interesting device, as it combines
>two distinctly separate electromagnetic concepts into one device.
>It both acts as a transformer to drive the horizontal deflection
>yoke, plus functions as an impulse or induction coil to produce
>high voltage pulses that are rectified and used for the CRT
>acceleration potential. Indeed, these are a remarkable invention.)
>
>Tesla Coils fall into a totally different category, as they operate
>on principles of resonance.
>
> Harry C.
>
>
--
michael Hannon
> On 23 Aug 1999 03:30:21 GMT, roa...@capital.net (J. Snell) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
> >just fine.
> >
> > He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
> >
> Doesn't have to be "pure" DC to burn out the transformer. The output
> of a bridge rectifier fed from 120V 60Hz AC is full wave rectified DC
> which essentially consists of DC with some harmonics (mostly 120Hz)
> riding on it. The DC component will very quickly fry the primary of a
> 1KVA transformer if the breaker or diodes don't limit the current
> first.
>
Is that right, Mr. Wart?
Where are those "harmonics" coming from?
Let's get into some basics here -
The voltage drop across most silicon bridge rectifiers is at least
1.2 volts per half-wave side.
When the AC voltage swing into the silicon bridge starts heading
towards zero to cross over to opposite polarity, what is the voltage
at the output of that bridge rectifier when the AC voltage in
reaches LESS than +/-1.2 volts?
What is the current flowing into the transformer primary at that point?
How many volts DC are going into the primary at that point?
What does the waveform look like?
Is it continuous?
Now let's get back to the Meyer power supply, where a ferrite toroid core
is being used -
would you please describe the hysteresis of that core that would block
an output when pulsating DC is applied, particularly when the design of the
transformer incorporates pulsating DC at the given frequency in the primary
and secondary windings?
While you're at it, Mr. Wart, why don't you describe to us in detail the so-called
"destruction" that would take place in ANY 110vac primary ferrite toroid core
transformer (very common these days), or even a ferrite core non-toroid
transformer, made by running it on full wave pulsating DC from a bridge rectifier
fed 110 v wall AC.
OHannon
>
> Some small special use (e.g. Class A coupling) transformers are
> designed to handle a DC current component (milliamperes), but not AC
> line power types.
>
> He (and apparently you) simply doesn't know what he's talking about,
> and could get someone hurt if they were to try his suggestion.
Uhuh.
> Basically he's proposing a dead short across the AC line through the
> diode bridge and xformer primary. Not a good idea at all.
Really?
A dead short?
How?
Does magnet wire suddenly lose it's resistance when you speak?
How many ohms are in a dead short?
How many ohms resistance would be in the length of wire needed to
wind the primary of that transformer with normal efficiency?
Explain how it is that the shape of an AC sine wave changes into something else
other than replicate sine shaped DC pulses when rectified so that more current can
flow into that resistance as you described.
What is the difference in power into the primary from the rectifier vs power into
the bridge rectifier due to that waveform change, and why?
OHannon
> >
> >In article <37c06cd9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> >bward*REMOVETHIS*@ix.netcom.com says...
> >>
> >>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:32:39 +0200, michael Hannon
> >><big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >><snip irrelevancies>
> >>>
> >>>I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
> >>>analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that
> >pulsating DC
> >>>won't operate in a step-up transformer
>
> BW> Below is the part I'm objecting to:
>
> >>> (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the wall) take some off a bridge
> >>> rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the primary of a, say,
> >>> 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
> >>> you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
>
michael Hannon
> On 23 Aug 1999 03:30:21 GMT, roa...@capital.net (J. Snell) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
> >just fine.
> >
> > He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
> >
> Doesn't have to be "pure" DC to burn out the transformer. The output
> of a bridge rectifier fed from 120V 60Hz AC is full wave rectified DC
> which essentially consists of DC with some harmonics (mostly 120Hz)
> riding on it. The DC component will very quickly fry the primary of a
> 1KVA transformer if the breaker or diodes don't limit the current
> first.
>
> Some small special use (e.g. Class A coupling) transformers are
> designed to handle a DC current component (milliamperes), but not AC
> line power types.
>
> He (and apparently you) simply doesn't know what he's talking about,
> and could get someone hurt if they were to try his suggestion.
> Basically he's proposing a dead short across the AC line through the
> diode bridge and xformer primary. Not a good idea at all.
>
> >
> >In article <37c06cd9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> >bward*REMOVETHIS*@ix.netcom.com says...
> >>
> >>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:32:39 +0200, michael Hannon
> >><big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >><snip irrelevancies>
> >>>
> >>>I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
> >>>analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that
> >pulsating DC
> >>>won't operate in a step-up transformer
>
> BW> Below is the part I'm objecting to:
>
> >>> (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the wall) take some off a bridge
> >>> rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the primary of a, say,
> >>> 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
> >>> you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
>
> BW> to which I replied:
> >>
> >>Yeah, right, Michael. Feed 110V DC into the primary of the
> >>transformer and watch it smoke till the breaker blows (unless the
> >>rectifier bridge pops first). Thats a strange new use of the word
> >>"work".
> >>
> >>Kids, don't try this at home. The guy's a dangerous loon.
> >>
>
> I stand by my post. That's got to be one of the dumbest things he's
> claimed yet. If you feel you just have to try it for yourself, be
> careful to have a good current limiter or circuit breaker. It just
> flat doesn't work.
>
I'm sure you will, Mr. Wart.
I'm glad you do.
The question remains, if it won't work, then how is it that
CONman and you won't ake the challenge?
All you have to do is fuse the input and hang onto the output.
If there's no output, the fuse will simply blow,
and the transformer primary, according to your astute observations,
won't be harmed - just heated a bit before the fuse blows.
Just use a fuse rated at whatever the primary is rated at.
Simple enough.
Mr. CONman can video himself hanging onto the "dead" (according to him) secondary.
OH
>
> Regards,
> Bill Ward
michael Hannon
opportunistic numbnut Lancaster, that powering a BG cell with wall current into
capacitive power supply was deadly as well.
I've used DOZENS of such supplies for all kinds of applications over the past two
years, and I haven't even been shocked once yet.
I've had much more problems with hair driers, toasters, and small heaters than I've
had with capacitive power supplies, which I've had no problems with. You don't see
them talking about THOSE items, though, do you?
HOWEVER, in this case, it isn't the primary of the transformer which is going to fry
when CONman holds onto the secondary, which he claims can't step up anything from
that pulsating DC input - it will be CONman who fries from the high voltage output
at the secondary, which will indeed put out a high voltage, just as the secondary of
an ignition coil will running on pulsating DC. Those that were designed to run on
pulsating DC will perform better, of course, than those made for AC running on
pulsating DC, but for either of these idiots to claim that there will NO output is
absurd.
(I really don't want CONman to electrocute himself, anyway -
I thought that the moron would back down just from the challenge
of such an absurd statement as he was making. I'd much prefer for him to die of old
age as ignorant, egotistical, and prejudiced as he is now, so that the next time he
comes back here, his job of self-realization and enlightenment, and the requisite
suffering he will have to go through to get them, will be much more difficult and
painful than what he was given, and avoided like the plague, this time around.)
I'm not even denying that pulsating DC may heat up that primary, and the core,
(AC does a pretty good job of it too) but LONG BEFORE it does, CONman here will be
put on his ass by what he claims can't exist because he claims that pulsating DC
will NOT work in a transformer at all, and THAT is pure Grade A uninformed bullshit
from one of the pseudoexperts in this NG.
Bill Ward wrote:
> On 23 Aug 1999 03:30:21 GMT, roa...@capital.net (J. Snell) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
> >just fine.
> >
> > He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
> >
> Doesn't have to be "pure" DC to burn out the transformer. The output
> of a bridge rectifier fed from 120V 60Hz AC is full wave rectified DC
> which essentially consists of DC with some harmonics (mostly 120Hz)
> riding on it. The DC component will very quickly fry the primary of a
> 1KVA transformer if the breaker or diodes don't limit the current
> first.
>
> Some small special use (e.g. Class A coupling) transformers are
> designed to handle a DC current component (milliamperes), but not AC
> line power types.
>
> He (and apparently you) simply doesn't know what he's talking about,
> and could get someone hurt if they were to try his suggestion.
> Basically he's proposing a dead short across the AC line through the
> diode bridge and xformer primary. Not a good idea at all.
>
> >
> >In article <37c06cd9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> >bward*REMOVETHIS*@ix.netcom.com says...
> >>
> >>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:32:39 +0200, michael Hannon
> >><big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >><snip irrelevancies>
> >>>
> >>>I'll bet some of your colleagues are still choking from your pulsating DC
> >>>analysis of a tramsformer. By the way, if you really are convinced that
> >pulsating DC
> >>>won't operate in a step-up transformer
>
> BW> Below is the part I'm objecting to:
>
> >>> (let's take regular old 60Hz stuff from the wall) take some off a bridge
> >>> rectifier feeding 110 volts pulsating DC into the primary of a, say,
> >>> 110/1000v 1 KVA AC transformer, and videotape it for me while
> >>> you're demonstrating how it "doesn't work" to your class.
>
> BW> to which I replied:
> >>
> >>Yeah, right, Michael. Feed 110V DC into the primary of the
> >>transformer and watch it smoke till the breaker blows (unless the
> >>rectifier bridge pops first). Thats a strange new use of the word
> >>"work".
> >>
> >>Kids, don't try this at home. The guy's a dangerous loon.
> >>
>
> I stand by my post. That's got to be one of the dumbest things he's
> claimed yet. If you feel you just have to try it for yourself, be
> careful to have a good current limiter or circuit breaker. It just
> flat doesn't work.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Ward
Harry H Conover
: A full-wave rectifier changes the A.C. signal from the wall into a signal
: scope.
Correct. Now apply that pusating D.C. to the primary of any ordinary
power transformer and, unless a circuit breaker or fuse blows, the transformer
will burn-out in short order.
Don't believe what the informed people here are telling you, fine. As
Mickey Mouse would suggest, you have to run an experiment to know for sure,
so do it. I'd suggest using a transformer powered TV set, the bigger the
more conclusive result you'll obtain. Better still, use your microwave
oven because that has a really impressive and robust power transformer
in it.
That way you'll know for sure, but be sure to let the experiment run to
completion. A half-hour or so should do the trick in most cases.
Of course, seeking out the professional opinion collge trained professional
electrical engineer could save you the cost of your experimental equipment.
I've had about enough of this terminal stupidity. If nothing else, this
exchange has again demonstrated that while ignorance can be corrected by
education, stupidity is forever!
Harry C.
Don Lancaster
Any brief off times during diode nonconduction are trivial.
Especially since the few tens of microseconds involved usually get "coasted
through" by stray or intentional capacitance. And most especially since Fourier
Series says it does not matter in the least if a repetitive waveform has zero or
even piecewise discontinuous values.
But the ~real~ issue has nothing to do with burning up the transformer. You can
always make the core bigger, heavier, and much more expensive to accomodate input
DC.
The Fourier Series for a half wave waveform is 0.63 dc + 0.42 second harmonic +
some negligible higher harmonics. Normalizing to unity 1.0 dc power, the second
harmonic power is (.42/.63)^2 = 0.44. Or an output power of 0.44/1.44 = 0.30.
Thus, at its very theoretical best a transformer fed a full wave rectified
waveform can only deliver a maximum output efficiency of thirty percent! That's
assuming it does not saturate.
If it does saturate, the output efficiency, of course, approaches zero.
I cannot imaging anyone doing this on purpose.
More on Fourier at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse109.pdf
The fundamentals will get you every time if you don't bother to learn them.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (520)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Nonnaho
>
> Bill Ward wrote:
>
> > On 23 Aug 1999 03:30:21 GMT, roa...@capital.net (J. Snell) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
> > >just fine.
> > >
> > > He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
> > >
> > Doesn't have to be "pure" DC to burn out the transformer. The output
> > of a bridge rectifier fed from 120V 60Hz AC is full wave rectified DC
> > which essentially consists of DC with some harmonics (mostly 120Hz)
> > riding on it. The DC component will very quickly fry the primary of a
> > 1KVA transformer if the breaker or diodes don't limit the current
> > first.
> >
>
>
> FLAT DC is what you're talking about,
> not pulsating DC.
> PULSATING DC output from a bridge rectifier run on AC
> has NO flat DC component -
> it varies from 0V to maximum and back again.
>
> Are these morons on drugs or what?
>
> How do I know?
> I've run lots of transformers on pulsating DC,
> and NEVER burned out a primary rated at the voltage in.
> You're either lying, or nuts -
> I say both.
>
> OHannon
>
> > designed to handle a DC current component (milliamperes), but not AC
> > line power types.
> >
> > He (and apparently you) simply doesn't know what he's talking about,
> > and could get someone hurt if they were to try his suggestion.
> > Basically he's proposing a dead short across the AC line through the
> > diode bridge and xformer primary. Not a good idea at all.
>
>
> OHannon
snip
I did a quick test.
Using a Fluke 87 TrueRMS meter ( calibrated every year )
I checked the resistance if the primaries of a small 12V transformer.
It was 8.3 ohms. The voltage at the wall outlet was 120.4 VAC. The
meter read 108.2 VDC and 3.114 VAC when a full wave bridge rectifier
was connected to the outlet. I wasn't brave enough to connect 108 VDC
to an 8.3 ohm load. Even if the meter was off 10X with regards to the
DC voltage, it would have blown the transformer ( it only had 700ma
output rating ).
Michael, can you please post your data so we all can see what is going
on. Thanks.
--
Nonnaho
James Meyer
> I checked the resistance if the primaries of a small 12V transformer.
> It was 8.3 ohms. The voltage at the wall outlet was 120.4 VAC. The
> meter read 108.2 VDC and 3.114 VAC when a full wave bridge rectifier
> was connected to the outlet. I wasn't brave enough to connect 108 VDC
> to an 8.3 ohm load. Even if the meter was off 10X with regards to the
> DC voltage, it would have blown the transformer ( it only had 700ma
> output rating ).
Put a 10K Ohm resistor across the bridge rectifier output and measure
the VAC again. Report back any change in the VAC reading and be prepared to
explain any differences.
Jim
Gerry Schneider
J. Snell wrote:
> Just to clear things up....
>
> A tesla coil uses an unloaded secondary winding and takes advantage of
> the open circuit to produce an extreme inductive voltage rise.
>
> Actually, the secondary inductance series resonates with the capacitance
> of the "top hat" (ball or toroidal shape) which is always added to a true
> Tesla Coil. The relatively poor coupling of primary to secondary
> accentuates this effect, which multiplies the voltage at the top by another
> factor of 5 to 10.
Bill Ward
though the author could (or even wants to) understand what I'm telling
him.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:32:41 +0200, michael Hannon
<big.b...@planet.nl> wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
>
>> On 23 Aug 1999 03:30:21 GMT, roa...@capital.net (J. Snell) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Pulsating D.C." is what was originally written and it will drive a transformer
>> >just fine.
>> >
>> > He didn't suggest that pure D.C. could drive a transformer.
>> >
>> Doesn't have to be "pure" DC to burn out the transformer. The output
>> of a bridge rectifier fed from 120V 60Hz AC is full wave rectified DC
>> which essentially consists of DC with some harmonics (mostly 120Hz)
>> riding on it. The DC component will very quickly fry the primary of a
>> 1KVA transformer if the breaker or diodes don't limit the current
>> first.
>>
>
>Is that right, Mr. Wart?
>Where are those "harmonics" coming from?
Diodes are nonlinear. Nonlinear devices generate harmonics in
sinewaves. See Don's post and learn about Fourier transforms.
>Let's get into some basics here -
>The voltage drop across most silicon bridge rectifiers is at least
>1.2 volts per half-wave side.
>
>When the AC voltage swing into the silicon bridge starts heading
>towards zero to cross over to opposite polarity, what is the voltage
>at the output of that bridge rectifier when the AC voltage in
>reaches LESS than +/-1.2 volts?
Depends on the load. Why?
>
>What is the current flowing into the transformer primary at that point?
If the secondary is unloaded, maximum current will occur near minimum
voltage. The primary is an inductor.
>
>How many volts DC are going into the primary at that point?
Volts don't go into anything. Volts are across. Current is through.
>
>What does the waveform look like?
Current or voltage?
>
>Is it continuous?
>
>Now let's get back to the Meyer power supply, where a ferrite toroid core
>is being used -
Who was at the Meyer supply? My post criticized the dangerously wacky
idea that a power transformer can operate on full wave rectified line
voltage. I don't think Meyer's supply presents much danger. The fact
that it doesn't work is of little interest to me.
>would you please describe the hysteresis of that core that would block
>an output when pulsating DC is applied, particularly when the design of the
>transformer incorporates pulsating DC at the given frequency in the primary
>and secondary windings?
No.
>While you're at it, Mr. Wart, why don't you describe to us in detail the so-called
>"destruction" that would take place in ANY 110vac primary ferrite toroid core
>transformer (very common these days), or even a ferrite core non-toroid
>transformer, made by running it on full wave pulsating DC from a bridge rectifier
>fed 110 v wall AC.
What's the core got to do with it? Heat is generated by the DC
component flowing through the resistance of the primary winding.
Resistance is low, voltage is high, current is high, temperature is
high, smoke is thick, lifetime is short. Clear enough?
<snip>
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
minute we were talking about DC in the primary. Too weird))
****Correction*****
The above holds for AC in the primary. With a DC component, the core
will saturate and cease to be much of an inductor. The current will
then be limited by the DC resistance of the winding, not the inductive
reactance, and will be highest when the voltage is highest.
michael Hannon
> J. Snell (roa...@capital.net) wrote:
> : A full-wave rectifier changes the A.C. signal from the wall into a signal
> : where both positive and negative lobes appear above the zero line on the
> : scope.
>
> Correct. Now apply that pusating D.C. to the primary of any ordinary
> power transformer and, unless a circuit breaker or fuse blows, the transformer
> will burn-out in short order.
>
> Don't believe what the informed people here are telling you, fine. As
> Mickey Mouse would suggest, you have to run an experiment to know for sure,
> so do it. I'd suggest using a transformer powered TV set, the bigger the
> more conclusive result you'll obtain. Better still, use your microwave
> oven because that has a really impressive and robust power transformer
> in it.
>
> That way you'll know for sure, but be sure to let the experiment run to
> completion. A half-hour or so should do the trick in most cases.
That is plenty of time for that transformer to send its output to your finger's
and put you down on the floor, brightboy.
That's what we're talking about - the original test was for YOU to hold onto the
output of that transformer running on pulsating DC, not to sit around watching it
heat up.
You're simply trying to avoid the fact that there will be an outpurt, and it will
put you down, by throwing technicalities into this to evade and obfuscate the
truth.
It isn't working, guys.
The simple fact remains that a toroid stepup transformer can be run on PULSATING
DC. You may not think it's the best way to do it -
BIG FUCKING DEAL - it still can be done, and in automotive applications,
where 12 vdc is the source, it isn't uncommon - especially in ignition coild run
off points, and not transistorized ignitions. You'll now argue that they don't
have many in cars like that anymore - el wrongo, dimwits - the 87 sedan that I
drive around in every day uses exactly such a system - an ignition "coil"
autotransformer run off the ignition points at 12 v pulsating DC - it outputs over
10Kv all day evry day it is used, and from 12 vdc, not AC.
How many such ignition systems are in cars today?
MILLIONS,
and you don't see lines at any auto parts stores waiting for replacement
DC spark output autrotransformers (ignition coils).
You yo yo's would pick a speck out on a Mondrian and argue it until it dropped
dead just to protect yourselves from having to look at the picture.
It aint going to work, boys -
ten of you can line up to try to obfucscate the point here and it wouldn't make a
snails ass of a difference - a stepup transformer can be built to run on pulsating
DC -
ESPECIALLY a ferrite cored toroid (I've never seen a laminated steel core toroid),
JUST AS IS INDICATED IN ONE OF MEYER"S PATENTS, and no matter what you try to say
to block it, the fact is that it will work despite CONman's heres
objections that it won't .........
Sorry, CONman, but it WILL, and it won't burn out either, just as it didn't in
some of Meyer's working power supplies - they output high voltage using pulsating
DC as input, and worked.
YOU SAID THAT'S LAUGHABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE.
Sorry, pal, but it is neither.
I suggest you get yourself a simple general purpose ignition "coil"
(autotransformer)
and do it yourself - check the resistance of the primary and secondaries (the
resistance of the secondary will be much higher, and it will have a tap in it that
is the primary winding) run it on pulsating12vdc and see what happens.
That "coil" is actually a transformer designed to run on pulsating DC.
> Of course, seeking out the professional opinion collge trained professional
> electrical engineer could save you the cost of your experimental equipment.
I know a summa cum laude electrical engineer with 50 years experience who still to
this day thinks that a V8 engine fires only one time for every revolution of the
crankshaft, and you can't tell him otherwise - he's summa cum laude, and what he
says HAS to be true.
CACA POO POO, CONman.
No thanks, CONman. I've done it in the real world many times.
The shortest lifespan I saw was with one of those fluorescent screw-in substitutes
for a lightbulb powered by a stepup transformer oscillator circuit in which the
transformer didn't blow, but another component did, after running it on 110v
pulsating DC from the wall for well over a week, 24 hours a day.
I'll even give you a quarter point - the transformer heats up (I've done it
enough),
but the experiment I described for you to try will put you down to the floor from
its output much faster than that transformer will heat up - end of story -
YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG AS SOON AS AN OUTPUT APPEARS IN THE SECONDARY, which you
claimed is impossible.
IT ISN'T.
Maybe you should try DOING it, before you run out with your textbooks and no
experience.
None of you nitwits have explained how it is that the resistance in the primary
is suddenly going to be turned to zero so that all that current can come rushing
into the primary - AC or DC, you still have that resistance that has to be crossed
in order for that so-called "massive" current to burn up the primary as you
nitwits describe.
> I've had about enough of this terminal stupidity. If nothing else, this
> exchange has again demonstrated that while ignorance can be corrected by
> education, stupidity is forever!
That's right, CONman, and as long as you keep claiming that pulsating DC CANNOT
yield an output from that toroid tramsformer in Meyer's diagrams,
you're nothing but an ignorant egotistical nitwit - because it will, and properly
designed, it'll do it 24 hours a day FOR YEARS, so educate YOURSELF by admitting
the truth instead of riding on that phoney paper-assed ego you got when you got
your degree,
as if it were some kind of divine blessing.
For you it has turned into the curse of pride,
which cometh before your fall,
which just took place..
in front of everyone here.
OHannon
>
> Harry C.
Fred Kasner
distilled water or conductivity water tap water is loaded with
electrolytes. That crap about there is no conduction with distilled
water and so little with tap water that the power supply doesn't shut
down but it does when electrolytes are added. Your hopelessly immature
attitude and lack of knowledge of chemistry make you yet more worthy of
the title Grand Dummy.
FK
michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Thank you for another pseudoexpert opinion, Kanserman.
>
Your welcome o'Whoreman.