Perpetual Motion
Dr. Bob
do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by
Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but
doesn't use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long
and poorly worded so it's hard to figure out what's going on. I'd like
others to dig this up and comment on it.
Dr. Bob
John Popelish
This is the web site for the offenders:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm
Which brings a song to mind...
What's flux go to do
got to do with it?
What's flux but a second hand induction?
....
They have a biased toroidal transformer and measure the change in flux
at two points on the toroid, and add those two changes together, and
announce that they have doubled the flux change. See the simple
(minded) explanation at:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megdsqth.htm
This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down
one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1
foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have
produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it.
Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep
taking about flux.
The patent is very crafty. In the claims section, they do not mention
any claim of over unity or perpetual motion, but just include the
claim that the input can be run from power from the output after a
starting phase with an external source of power. The over unity
people will read this as implying continuous operation after that, but
it is not claimed. Of course, if you take all the energy out of the
output and put it back into the input, it will have a normal decay
time constant as it grinds to a halt, but that isn't mentioned. They
also claim that the operation will eventually degauss the magnets,
implying that they are extracting energy from them, but this is also
not stated explicitly. I think this is how they got it past the
patent office.
Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this
design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what
is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer, as long as the core is
not magnetized enough to saturate (which is specified as a requirement
for the operation of the "generator". What a hoot.
--
John Popelish
Don Kelly
sci.physics.electromagnetic
Naudin doesn't know how to use his instruments- reduce the output to 10% of
what is claimed and you will be right on -efficiency about 30%. Big deal.
As for the patent, it isn't the first "perpetual motion" patent that has
been produced. As long as the words "perpetual motion" are not mentioned and
the concept is wrapped in deep enough manure, the poor overworked and
undereducated patent clerks wont know the difference.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
"John Popelish" <jpop...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3CB36DD8...@rica.net...
EL
I have to disagree with you on your final conclusion, but I do agree
with you on many parts of your post.
See below.
John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3CB36DD8...@rica.net>...
> "Dr. Bob" wrote:
> >
> > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell
> > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by
> > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but
> > doesn't use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long
> > and poorly worded so it's hard to figure out what's going on. I'd like
> > others to dig this up and comment on it.
> > Dr. Bob
<snip>
>
> They have a biased toroidal transformer and measure the change in flux
> at two points on the toroid, and add those two changes together, and
> announce that they have doubled the flux change.
[EL]
I do not know about that, but I know they are channeling the flux of
the permanent magnet into one of two paths.
The rate of change of the magnetic field within the core is what
produces energy.
The permanent magnet should be made from a material that resists
demagnetization by a special alloy of cobalt and samarium.
The core should be of a very high initial magnetization and the
direction of the 'input field' is orthogonal to the dipolar axis and
along the core.
This implies that the field from the magnet is not being opposed at
all, and what we have here is the vector some of the two fields, one
which is that of the permanent magnet and one which is induced by the
electric coil. The resulting direction alternates and we collect the
induction of both fields.
<snip>
>
> This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down
> one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1
> foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have
> produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it.
[EL]
No I am sorry to tell you that your metaphor is off the wall and not
related properly.
>
> Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep
> taking about flux.
[EL]
Yes, not in the patent, but you need to read Tomas Bearden's papers to
find the equations.
It is pretty neat I have to admit.
>
> The patent is very crafty. In the claims section, they do not mention
> any claim of over unity or perpetual motion, but just include the
> claim that the input can be run from power from the output after a
> starting phase with an external source of power. The over unity
> people will read this as implying continuous operation after that, but
> it is not claimed. Of course, if you take all the energy out of the
> output and put it back into the input, it will have a normal decay
> time constant as it grinds to a halt, but that isn't mentioned. They
> also claim that the operation will eventually degauss the magnets,
> implying that they are extracting energy from them, but this is also
> not stated explicitly. I think this is how they got it past the
> patent office.
>
> Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this
> design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what
> is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer,
[EL]
Really!
And how is that?
How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched
left and right?
How can you exclude that field from your sum?
Or are you saying that the magnet's field shall be distributed left
and right and shall not react to the polar directions of the atomic
magnetic domains induced by the input coils?
If I were you I should take my time to analyze what is going on before
I make any jerky declarations.
>as long as the core is
> not magnetized enough to saturate (which is specified as a requirement
> for the operation of the "generator". What a hoot.
[EL]
I think you are making a big mistake sir.
Kind regards.
EL
John Popelish
>
> [EL]
> I have to disagree with you on your final conclusion, but I do agree
> with you on many parts of your post.
> See below.
>
> John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3CB36DD8...@rica.net>...
> > Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this
> > design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what
> > is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer,
> [EL]
> Really!
> And how is that?
> How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched
> left and right?
> How can you exclude that field from your sum?
The field contribution of the magnet is a fixed bias added to the
field in both halves of the core. it has no effect on the change in
the amount of flux when the input coils are pulsed. The fact that one
half of the core goes from the bias field to zero, and the flux in the
other half goes from the bias value to twice the bias value, does not
change the fact that the bias coil changed the flux in both halves of
the core in the same direction by the same amount (given that the bias
field goes the opposite way in each half). Since only the flux change
affects the output, the starting bias has no effect given that it is a
constant added to the input signal flux. This is just a transformer
with a bias in the core.
(snip)
> [EL]
> I think you are making a big mistake sir.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> EL
Perhaps, but you haven't explained what it is.
--
John Popelish
Boris Mohar
Snip..
>>
>> Any electrical engineering student should be able to analyze this
>> design well enough to see that the bias magnet has no effect on what
>> is otherwise an ordinary toroidal transformer,
>[EL]
>Really!
>And how is that?
>How can the bias magnet have no effect if its field is being switched
>left and right?
>How can you exclude that field from your sum?
Because you are adding or subtracting from a constant, BH losses do not
help either
Regards,
Boris Mohar
Don Kelly
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.02040...@posting.google.com...
------------------
Is this some new theory which violates known theory and observations?
In this case, without any mechanical output, within a given time interval,
the change of electrical energy in = change of magnetic field energy stored
+ change of electrical energy out +losses. This is true whether the change
occurs quickly or slowly. No net energy is being produced by the magnetic
field - it acts as a transfer mechanism not an energy source.
Any decent electromagnetic energy conversion text covers this.
The bias, if it doesn't cause saturation does not enter into the situation.
-----------------------
> The permanent magnet should be made from a material that resists
> demagnetization by a special alloy of cobalt and samarium.
> The core should be of a very high initial magnetization and the
> direction of the 'input field' is orthogonal to the dipolar axis and
> along the core.
> This implies that the field from the magnet is not being opposed at
> all, and what we have here is the vector some of the two fields, one
> which is that of the permanent magnet and one which is induced by the
> electric coil. The resulting direction alternates and we collect the
> induction of both fields.
-------------
Not so
-----------
> <snip>
> >
> > This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down
> > one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1
> > foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have
> > produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it.
> [EL]
> No I am sorry to tell you that your metaphor is off the wall and not
> related properly.
>
> >
> > Nowhere do they do an energy analysis of anything. They just keep
> > taking about flux.
> [EL]
> Yes, not in the patent, but you need to read Tomas Bearden's papers to
> find the equations.
> It is pretty neat I have to admit.
----------
Beardon uses math in the same way that some use statistics- looks good but
his conclusions bear little resemblance to reality. It looks good but
doesn't really mean anything. This is particularly applicable to his use and
interpretation of a scalar potential where the physical meaning of the
actual quantities of importance is lost, rather than preserved.
------------
------------------
The sea level makes no difference to the height of waves and any energy
obtainable from waves. It is simply a bias. The same thing holds here. The
field can be broken into a fixed (due to the bias) and a time variable part-
it is only the variable portion which can produce an emf in the output coils
The fixed component cotributes nothing.
The device works but at about 30% efficiency , not in excess of 100% as
claimed. Naudin's measurements, while amateurishly described do have a
glaring fault- the current out as claimed is 10 times the actual
current.This can be determined from his own data , the measurement resistor,
the load resistor, and the characteristics of the scope used.
Wishful thinking is not a substiture for hard analysis/ documented testing,
etc.
Douglas Eagleson
"Dr. Bob" wrote:
It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good
thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but
the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a
theorectical vaucum.
A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from
the efficiency measurement current.
A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this
strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor
is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so
every one gets confused about a true experimental,
strange behavior.
A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will
be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept
of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause
of the flow of energy.
That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy
of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current
by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to
complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just
this. Just one small logic error.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
Don Lancaster
There is some anecdotal evidence that, if you take your patent, frame it
and put it on the north wall of your Nebraska office, that it will
prevent or at least reduce the severety of walrus attacks.
See http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Widders
news:3CB34406...@yahoo.com...
Don Widders
Spaceman
ZPE,
or vacuum energy are used
it is all crap. (or the designer has no REAL clue how it works.)
If they say it has "harnessed gravity and magnetic forces".
than it might have a chance of being real.
<G>
"Dr. Bob" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CB34BF2...@yahoo.com...
Promenader
to be workable for someone to hand over their money, just original.
"Dr. Bob" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CB34BF2...@yahoo.com...
Richard Bell
The magnetic flux change in the permanent magnet is zero. Only a changing
magnetic field can induce an electric current. The device should work just
as well without the magnet in the circuit. If it works with the magnet in
place, but not without it, Bearden has won himself a Nobel Prize for
discovering that electromagnetism is not a conservative force. However,
if electromagnetism is not a conservative force, it cannot fall off with
the inverse square of the distance (which it does). Bearden has to do
serious measurements with the highest sampling rates, so we can verify
this. The non-conservative nature and disobedience of the inverse sqare
law changes enough of physics that the burden of proof is on the claimant.
>>
>> This is analogous to throwing a rope over a pulley, and pulling down
>> one foot on one end, while measuring both that move, and the upward 1
>> foot move on the other end of the rope, and announcing that you have
>> produced a machine that doubles the energy you put into it.
>[EL]
>No I am sorry to tell you that your metaphor is off the wall and not
>related properly.
>
You are incorrect, the metaphor has someone shouting "amazing", as he pulled
one end for one foot, yet the two ends are now two feet apart.
As its field contribution to the flux in the coils
is unchanging, and only a changing flux will induce current in the output
coils, its contribution to the output energy is, exactly, zero (unless
Bearden wins that prize from Oslo). The flux in the outer legs in the
MEG is equal to half of the magnet's flux, plus a variable amount that is
changes between +1/2 and -1/2 of the magnet's flux. When you take the time
derivative to determine output current, the constant value becomes zero.
This is the point where you cry out "Magnetic re-gauging", and we say
"Prove it".
Don Lancaster
>
> The patent office is full of perpetual motion ideas. A design doesn't have
> to be workable for someone to hand over their money, just original.
A patent does NOT have to be original.
It just has to be poorly enough researched that it fails to pick up the
prior art.
Don Lancaster
Oh, the ZPE is quite real. It is a math artifact needed to get
information theory to work.
There is enough ZPE in an earth sized volume that, if fully and
efficiently extracted, would equal the energy in a gallon of gasoline.
Dr. Bob
inventor and spread information, one main use is to garner investment.
Investors offen use the fact that patents have issued as a guide to an
inventions viablility. "It's patened so it must work and be a good
idea." I think the patent office has fallen down in this case and
allowed pure crap to prevail. I agree, it's not the first time.
Dr. Bob
Ron Herfurth
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3CB3CA1A...@tinaja.com...
Ok, that's good, that's an expression everyone gets. Unlike "exergy" that
few people understand.
Way to go Don, I knew you could do it.
Nonnaho
news:3CB34406...@yahoo.com...
<snip>
> It is a real strange system and a magnetic transistor is a good
> thing to study. It will never "take energy from the vacumn", but
> the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a
> theorectical vaucum.
>
> A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from
> the efficiency measurement current.
>
> A magnetic transistor field is initiated and persistes to cause this
> strange form of field theory. Except a magnetic transistor
> is not able to be correctly stated with field theory, so
> every one gets confused about a true experimental,
> strange behavior.
>
> A transistor using a magnetic quanta statement will
> be a form of theory most applicable. And the concept
> of a quanta flux causing the current, is the true cause
> of the flow of energy.
>
> That was a quick study of the device. It is worthy
> of a patent. It can be used for the switching of a current
> by a magnet. Except it needs a "base signal" logic to
> complete the transistor. And the efficiency energy is just
> this. Just one small logic error.
>
> Douglas Eagleson
> Gaithersburg, MD USA
I hope the other post I made today doesn't sound to others
as this one sounds to me. PLEASE say it isn't so!
Nonnaho
Spaceman
> Oh, the ZPE is quite real. It is a math artifact needed to get
> information theory to work.
No,
it's a bunch of mathheads that picked ZPE instead of finding out
what the stuff realy is made of and
what realy makes the energy.
IT's ignorance in it's purest form.
Zero means zero.
giving it anything other than zero is ignorance.
Zero point energy is a joke in it's own wording.
> There is enough ZPE in an earth sized volume that, if fully and
> efficiently extracted, would equal the energy in a gallon of gasoline.
No,
there is enough unaccounted for energy.
calling it zero point is dumb and stupid.
for it can't be a zero if it has energy at all.
recalibrate your zero will ya!
sheesh!
your zero should be larger than zero if it is
not truly zero.
Don Lancaster
Just to prove how effective it is, there has not been one walrus attack
reported in Nebraska in the last twenty minutes.
Don Kelly
use of
buzzwords and minimal (approaching zero) meaningful content.
.--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
"Douglas Eagleson" <eagleso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CB34406...@yahoo.com...
>
>
Douglas Eagleson
Don Kelly wrote:
The content requires someone who likes to
think about the meaning of a true taking of
energy from the field.
That is a simple concept to consider.
Do you agree or disagree with the
patent considered?
Douglas Eagleson
Nonnaho wrote:
Please say the answer to this simple field theory
question.
Does the space of the vacuum contain?
So now you know how I write. I write
to communicate good thoughts of
theory. And the question above is trivial.
Douglas Eagleson
Don Widders wrote:
A concept of a correct theory statement and
an experiment that proves this theory not capable of
a true statement is the way I addressed this posting.
Littlefish
To harness this would require this unbalance to be removed which would cause
the item to become weightless.
This energy can be easily harnessed.
Littlefish
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.com> wrote in message
news:ub8dmli...@corp.supernews.com...
Littlefish
of
you have a 101 patent?????
Littlefish
"Promenader" <prome...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:QDWs8.1768$tZ1.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
EL
[Richard Bell]
> This is the point where you cry out "Magnetic re-gauging", and we say
> "Prove it".
[EL]
I am replying you for all the others here.
I quite understood what was said, but there is something very
interesting not noticed.
Naturally I can reply with a verbose post and explain by equations
where the 'standard' mistake is.
Nevertheless, You have summed it up by your last words.
So, I am off to prove it.
Do not hold your breath because it shall take more time than your
breathing rate. :-)
But be damn sure that I shall be back with the proof after I begin
selling the thing.
I shall design a new Web-Page for the purpose and put the details
there.
I sympathize with you all, because it is not just Bearden and his
group here saying so.
I have very highly professional reports from Japanese universities'
laboratory research saying the same thing.
They already began manufacturing new devices with 'biased' fields to
increase the efficiency.
I have more to say, but not in words. ;-)
Until we meet again:
Kindest regards.
EL
John
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A 101 patent must be demonstraited as Stanley Meyers patent was! How many
>of you have a 101 patent?????
Bullsh**. The only time Meyer's device was demonstrated to anybody
who had a clue, it didn't work. So Meyer claimed it was sabotaged.
Meyer "demonstrated" his device to a lot of people through the years.
But they were exclusively ignorant people, with no backgound with
which they could judge what they were witnessing. One was even a
retired British admiral. That's a little like having Chi Chi
Rodriguez vouch for the effectiveness of the Quadro Tracker in finding
golf balls after seeing the makers of the device demonstrate it to
him.
Meyer's followers still claim that research chemists, engineers,
physicists, etc., all witnessed the operation of his device and were
astounded. Yet, nobody can seem to find any of these people to verify
the story. And strangely, there isn't a single piece of data on the
device's performance. Not a single legitimate power input
measurement. Not a single gas volume or gas energy content
measurement. Just a couple fuzzy videos and a bunch of "gosh, golly
gee, look at it bubble" ignoramuses refusing to admit that they were
taken by a soft spoken scam artist.
The transparency of the Stanley Meyer scam is so obvious. It's really
sad that there are people who fell for it. And it's even sadder that,
years after his death, these people are *still* falling for it.
Spaceman
<G>
It's easier to use something the gravity get's a hold on.
<G>
It's zero point energy that is the joke.
and just because it's a "zero" point.
maybe zero's can use it?
and I can't becasuse I am 1
and can't be zero
<LOL>
"Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:akbt8.35017$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
The Technical Manager
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:05:56 +1000, "Littlefish"
> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >A 101 patent must be demonstraited as Stanley Meyers patent was! How many
> >of you have a 101 patent?????
>
> Bullsh**. The only time Meyer's device was demonstrated to anybody
> who had a clue, it didn't work. So Meyer claimed it was sabotaged.
>
> Meyer "demonstrated" his device to a lot of people through the years.
> But they were exclusively ignorant people, with no backgound with
> which they could judge what they were witnessing. One was even a
> retired British admiral.
Another was Michael Laughton the dean of engineering at Queen Mary and
Westfield college.
> That's a little like having Chi Chi
> Rodriguez vouch for the effectiveness of the Quadro Tracker in finding
> golf balls after seeing the makers of the device demonstrate it to
> him.
>
> Meyer's followers still claim that research chemists, engineers,
> physicists, etc., all witnessed the operation of his device and were
> astounded. Yet, nobody can seem to find any of these people to verify
> the story. And strangely, there isn't a single piece of data on the
> device's performance. Not a single legitimate power input
> measurement. Not a single gas volume or gas energy content
> measurement.
I have done some tests on the device. It is NOT overunity.
> Just a couple fuzzy videos and a bunch of "gosh, golly
> gee, look at it bubble" ignoramuses refusing to admit that they were
> taken by a soft spoken scam artist.
>
> The transparency of the Stanley Meyer scam is so obvious. It's really
> sad that there are people who fell for it. And it's even sadder that,
> years after his death, these people are *still* falling for it.
Where exactly is the scam ? The device successfully splits water into hydrogen
and oxygen. Thats all.
Don Widders
John
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>John wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:05:56 +1000, "Littlefish"
>> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A 101 patent must be demonstraited as Stanley Meyers patent was! How many
>> >of you have a 101 patent?????
>>
>> Bullsh**. The only time Meyer's device was demonstrated to anybody
>> who had a clue, it didn't work. So Meyer claimed it was sabotaged.
>>
>> Meyer "demonstrated" his device to a lot of people through the years.
>> But they were exclusively ignorant people, with no backgound with
>> which they could judge what they were witnessing. One was even a
>> retired British admiral.
>
>Another was Michael Laughton the dean of engineering at Queen Mary and
>Westfield college.
And I'm sure he wasn't permitted to make any measurements.
Besides, if you've ever worked in an academic environment you'd know
that the deans, department heads, etc., often have *very* little
technical ability.
>> That's a little like having Chi Chi
>> Rodriguez vouch for the effectiveness of the Quadro Tracker in finding
>> golf balls after seeing the makers of the device demonstrate it to
>> him.
>>
>> Meyer's followers still claim that research chemists, engineers,
>> physicists, etc., all witnessed the operation of his device and were
>> astounded. Yet, nobody can seem to find any of these people to verify
>> the story. And strangely, there isn't a single piece of data on the
>> device's performance. Not a single legitimate power input
>> measurement. Not a single gas volume or gas energy content
>> measurement.
>
>I have done some tests on the device. It is NOT overunity.
Thanks for confirming that Meyer was a fraud.
>> Just a couple fuzzy videos and a bunch of "gosh, golly
>> gee, look at it bubble" ignoramuses refusing to admit that they were
>> taken by a soft spoken scam artist.
>>
>> The transparency of the Stanley Meyer scam is so obvious. It's really
>> sad that there are people who fell for it. And it's even sadder that,
>> years after his death, these people are *still* falling for it.
>
>Where exactly is the scam ? The device successfully splits water into hydrogen
>and oxygen. Thats all.
Meyer claimed to be able to fuel a car with nothing but water going
into his water fuel cell. That was a direct statement that the water
fuel cell wass an overunity device. Since you confirm that the water
fuel cell is *not* an overunity device, you confirm that Meyer was a
fraud.
Dan Bloomquist
Dr. Bob wrote:
> A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell
> do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by
> Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but
> doesn't use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long
> and poorly worded so it's hard to figure out what's going on. I'd like
> others to dig this up and comment on it.
> Dr. Bob
>
Here is a mechanical version of the Bearden MEG. Bearden's claim
extracts the energy electrically instead of mechanically, but the
principle is the same in both claims.
If the energy in a magnetic field is conservative, there is a flaw in
the following logic.
http://www.flynnresearch.net/tests_&_results.htm
http://www.flynnresearch.net/page_7.htm
I'd imagine it would be much like the riddle where 13 guests are put
into 12 rooms.
Best, Dan.
Don Kelly
the device works as an overunity device. Naudin's measurements are garbage.
My comment to you was that you have strung words together, in an
incomprehensible and meaningless manner, using buzzwords and non-sensical
sentences.
Examples:
a) the system forms a field theory which takes energy from a
> > > theorectical vaucum.
Field theory and the system are two different things. Energy from a
"theoretical vacuum" ? Meaningless.
b)A system may also be stated so the energy is taken from
> > > the efficiency measurement current
This is hopelessly expressed and is meaningless as stated.
c)It can be used for the switching of a current
> > > by a magnet.
Seems to me that there is a mess of electronics doing the switching.
d) You asked nonnano the following
Please say the answer to this simple field theory
question.
>Does the space of the vacuum contain?
Does it contain what?
Do you think that you can express your ideas in a form and language that is
readily understandable and uses terms such as energy, current, transistor,
field theory, etc in their accepted contexts? - If you want to stray from
these contexts, then define your terms.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
"Douglas Eagleson" <eagleso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CB489F8...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Don Kelly wrote:
>
> > Congratulations on stringing together a mix of statements with a
maximum
> > use of
> > buzzwords and minimal (approaching zero) meaningful content.
Examples:
c) > >
Don Kelly
"Dan Bloomquist" <d...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3CB60606...@spam.net...
---------
The flaw is that the authors measure static force only.
There is absolutely no discussion of energy or energy balances. Note that
if the reciprocatiing device were to be built, the energy input would be
from the coil- conservation of energy and conventional electromagnetic
energy conversion princples still hold and analysis is straightforward.
There is no breakthrough or startling discovery shown on the website.
Yes, within limits dictated by the material, a coil can be used in
conjunction with a magnet to modify the flux distribution -nothing new here.
Ho-hum
Don Widders
Can you actually speak English, or do you just randomly pull words out of a
dictionary?
Written communication is not your strong suite!
Don Widders
John Riley
wrote:
>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>> If the terms
>> ZPE,
>> or vacuum energy are used
>> it is all crap. (or the designer has no REAL clue how it works.)
>>
>> If they say it has "harnessed gravity and magnetic forces".
>> than it might have a chance of being real.
>> <G>
>>
>> "Dr. Bob" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3CB34BF2...@yahoo.com...
>> > A patent has just issued for a perpetual motion machine so what the hell
>> > do we need hydrogen for? Believe it or not pat. number 6,362,718 by
>> > Patrick, et al. describes a magnetic perpetual motion machine but
>> > doesn't use those words in the description or claims. The patent is long
>> > and poorly worded so it's hard to figure out what's going on. I'd like
>> > others to dig this up and comment on it.
>> > Dr. Bob
>
>Oh, the ZPE is quite real. It is a math artifact needed to get
>information theory to work.
>
>There is enough ZPE in an earth sized volume that, if fully and
>efficiently extracted, would equal the energy in a gallon of gasoline.
US or Imperial, Don?
ATB John
Littlefish
"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cb56aca....@netnews.att.net...
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:05:56 +1000, "Littlefish"
> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >A 101 patent must be demonstraited as Stanley Meyers patent was! How
many
> >of you have a 101 patent?????
>
> Bullsh**. The only time Meyer's device was demonstrated to anybody
> who had a clue, it didn't work. So Meyer claimed it was sabotaged.
Really ???? Are you calling the US Patent examiners CLUELESS??????
I would go and do a little research. You also neglected to answer my
question!
DO YOU HAVE A 101 PATENT????????
Personally I wouldn't patent any of my devices including my
weather/earthquake control tools, after all who would believe me!
John
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Really???
>"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3cb56aca....@netnews.att.net...
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:05:56 +1000, "Littlefish"
>> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A 101 patent must be demonstraited as Stanley Meyers patent was! How many
>> >of you have a 101 patent?????
>>
>> Bullsh**. The only time Meyer's device was demonstrated to anybody
>> who had a clue, it didn't work. So Meyer claimed it was sabotaged.
>Really ???? Are you calling the US Patent examiners CLUELESS??????
No. (But in many cases they *are* clueless.) Meyer never
demonstrated anything to the patent office. He only "demonstrated"
his device to clueless rubes and unqualified "authority figures" to
whom he could later refer to as being "impressed".
Besides, you can get a patent on *anything* as long as it's
"original". It doesn't have to work -- it just has to be "original".
The only time Meyer allowed anybody with a clue to actually examine
the operation of his device, it was found to be doing nothing but
conventional electrolysis. Meyer then screamed "Sabotage!
Conspiracy!", as his followers still do to this day.
And still, nobody is driving a water powered car or successfully
operating a water fuel cell. And the only excuses the Meyer
supporters can come up with are that the technology is being
suppressed and there's a massive global conspiracy to keep it down.
Sheesh.
>I would go and do a little research. You also neglected to answer my
>question!
>DO YOU HAVE A 101 PATENT????????
Why would that matter?
>Personally I wouldn't patent any of my devices including my
>weather/earthquake control tools, after all who would believe me!
What was this you were saying about a "101 patent"??? Wouldn't simply
demonstrate them to the PTO and get a "101 patent" to wave in our
faces? Is a "101 patent" really that worthless?
Or maybe you could use your weather/earthquake control tools to shake
my house and make it rain really hard to wash away all the grass seed
I just put down, just to piss me off.
Go on, I dare you.
EL
[EL]
I apologize for the way I responded, but any further explanation shall
expose confidential research information.
I am not entitled to do so now.
All the replies are correct, but they are addressing a different issue
of mixing a *statically* and magnetically biased core with a varying
magnetic field produced by a coil.
I was hinting at a very advanced technology related to
magnetic-logic-gates, which are synonymous to the electronic control
of charge flow in semiconductors.
Therefore, we can produce *magnetic-magnification* by controlling
*synonymous minorities* in a magneto-semiconductor.
You do not dispute the magnetic potential difference between poles, or
do you?
The confidential research is related to the utilization of the
magnetic potential difference in a similar manner to that of the
electric potential difference.
The details of the circuits may not be disclosed at this moment.
Hence, I said that I am off to prove it.
You could all grind your teeth while I work.
Good bye. :-)
EL
Don Lancaster
>
> The confidential research is related to the utilization of the
> magnetic potential difference in a similar manner to that of the
> electric potential difference.
> The details of the circuits may not be disclosed at this moment.
> Hence, I said that I am off to prove it.
> You could all grind your teeth while I work.
> Good bye. :-)
>
> EL
Where did you take your thermodynamics courses?
Have you considered a class action product liability lawsuit?
Douglas Eagleson
Don Kelly wrote:
You need to figure out why your thinking has no
capacity to relate a truth of a theory to a reality
of the theory's usage.
You claim your concepts as a truth, and disallow
my communication based on your preconceived
form of theory.
You need to remove the truth state from your
logic.
Don Widders
I don't think there will be any gnashing of teeth or loss of sleep unless it
is YOU wondering why your 'magnetic battery' just doesn't seem to have any
juice in it!
You made an analogy to a logic gate. Logic gates are not energy sources!
Then you made an analogy of magnetism to 'the electric potential difference'
(voltage). Voltage also is not energy and you don't get any more energy
from equalizing a difference of potential than it took to create the
difference of potential in the first place. So far, no new source of
energy.
You don't know what you're talking about and I've wasted more words on you
than you're worth. I use such harsh words because there are only two ways
to describe you. You're either a fraud or you're very ignorant. If you're
really that ignorant then your talk of "confidential research" is a lie. So
really there is only one way to describe you. You're a liar.
Don W.
Don Widders
successfully demonstrated the practice of that theory to your satisfaction?
And further, that if someone disagrees with you're ridiculous conclusions
then they must be suffering from some diminished capacity? Never mind. I
don't really want to know what you're saying!
> You claim your concepts as a truth, and disallow
> my communication based on your preconceived
> form of theory.
Only YOU disallow communication by your unintelligible babbling. No one has
disallowed your unintelligible babbling. Babble all you want!
>
> You need to remove the truth state from your
> logic.
Removing "the truth state from your logic" doesn't sound like a good thing,
but then everything you've written is pretty much meaningless anyway. Why
do you bother? It's more of a waste of bandwidth than something funny.
>
> Douglas Eagleson
> Gaithersburg, MD USA
You need to stop making an utter fool of yourself by babbling about what
other people need to do.
Don Widders
John Riley
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>So really there is only one way to describe you. You're a liar.
But otherwise fairly trustworthy, Don? :)
ATB John
Don Widders
news:9epkbucjvkahh7npm...@4ax.com...
Aside from that one little character flaw I actually admire the man! :-)
Don W.
Tony Wesley
[snip]
> You don't know what you're talking about and I've wasted more words on you
> than you're worth.
That's the essential point. Don't waste your time.
EL
[EL]
:-)
Sorry, but you cannot *Tease out* information from me right now.
I am not a liar, but [sic] soot your self. <g>
You put a dynamo in a waterfall and generate energy from a potential difference.
Period. :-)
Think of me as ignorant, no problem, we all are.
He who believes he knows all, has yet one more thing to learn. :-)
Guess what that one more thing is Don.
If you find out, you might learn something. :-)
Kind regards.
EL
John Popelish
> Sorry, but you cannot *Tease out* information from me right now.
(snip)
This is a discussion forum. If the only thing you are willing to say
in defense of your claim is that you cannot discuss at this time, why
post?
Just surprise us later.
--
John Popelish
EL
[EL]
Hint.
Closing an electric circuit discharges it.
Closing a magnetic circuit *Charges* it.
*
Experiment #1:
- Measure the potential difference in volts for a 'battery'.
-Short circuit the battery with a heavy copper wire.
-You get energy conversion in the form of heat.
- Measure the potential difference in volts for the 'battery' again
after many hors under short circuit conditions.
- The battery is discharged and no more energy is available.
*
Experiment #1:
-Measure the magnetic field strength of a permanent ' horseshoe'
magnet.
-Measure the maximum loud in kilograms of pure iron the magnet could
hold against gravity.
-Short circuit the magnet with a 'keeper' made of superpermalloy.
-After one year come back and remove the keeper, and repeat the
experiment.
-The magnet is still powerful and capable of dewing work by picking up
the same maximum load.
Conclusion:
Loading permanent magnets in the proper way preserves the potential
difference of the field.
This is in contrast to loading an electric power source.
I may discuss such *hints*. :-)
Details are for *money making* or do you mind? ;-)
EL
EL
> I don't think there will be any gnashing of teeth or loss of sleep unless it
> is YOU wondering why your 'magnetic battery' just doesn't seem to have any
> juice in it!
>
> You made an analogy to a logic gate. Logic gates are not energy sources!
> Then you made an analogy of magnetism to 'the electric potential difference'
> (voltage). Voltage also is not energy and you don't get any more energy
> from equalizing a difference of potential than it took to create the
> difference of potential in the first place. So far, no new source of
> energy.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about and I've wasted more words on you
> than you're worth. I use such harsh words because there are only two ways
> to describe you. You're either a fraud or you're very ignorant. If you're
> really that ignorant then your talk of "confidential research" is a lie. So
> really there is only one way to describe you. You're a liar.
>
> Don W.
[EL]
How long may a permanent magnet hold a ferromagnetic material against
gravity?
If you had a method of *channeling* the field in the permeable media
such that the remanence core is indifferent, do you or do you not get
an electric field, which corresponds to the rate of change in the
magnetic field being *channeled*?
Loading the electric circuit should induce a demagnetizing field in
the *Channel*.
May we *Utilize* this fact to *shut down* that *Channel* while we
*Open* another? :-)
That is too much disclosure already.
So I am not a 'Liar' as much as you are not an idiot, or are you? :-)
EL
Don Lancaster
Um, there's an urban lore myth going around that del dot H equals zero.
Some brit may have started it.
Douglas Eagleson
Don Widders wrote:
You obviously need to do the same thing. Decide on
abstract thinking as a verbal tool for argument when your
attempts at formal logic fail, or use abstract logic as
your formal form of thinking.
If I am so good at just "words", please try the
relations between the words as the intended meaning.
Don Kelly
"Douglas Eagleson" <eagleso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CB9B8CC...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Don Kelly wrote:
>
> > I disagree with the patent claims and there is no verifiable evidence
that
> > the device works as an overunity device. Naudin's measurements are
garbage.
> >
> > My comment to you was that you have strung words together, in an
> > incomprehensible and meaningless manner, using buzzwords and
non-sensical
> > sentences.
> >
> > Do you think that you can express your ideas in a form and language that
is
> > readily understandable and uses terms such as energy, current,
transistor,
> > field theory, etc in their accepted contexts? - If you want to stray
from
> > these contexts, then define your terms.
> > --
> > Don Kelly
> > dh...@peeshaw.ca
> > remove the urine to answer
> > >
>
> You need to figure out why your thinking has no
> capacity to relate a truth of a theory to a reality
> of the theory's usage.
-------------
Not my problem - The "usage" is faulty - and no independent evidence or
confirmed test data exists for the "reality". Now, you tell me how a device
which has not been proven to work, is related to the truth of a theory
except in a negative sense?
-----------------.
> You claim your concepts as a truth, and disallow
> my communication based on your preconceived
> form of theory.
-------
You haven't yet comunicated anything- If you had then we might have
something to discuss. I am quite ready to admit errors but I must be shown
them. You certainly have said nothing that challenges, even feebly, existing
concepts or any of my statements.
----------------
>
> You need to remove the truth state from your
> logic.
-------
Do you mean that I should lie? That is what you are implying in the above
statement.
Please communicate clearly - my previous statements above hold true. If you
cannot express yourself clearly then you can expect to be questioned or,
more likely, ignored as I shall do from now on.
Tony Wesley
> [EL]
> How long may a permanent magnet hold a ferromagnetic material against
> gravity?
You know, just today I saw that effect. Outside, dirt was holding a rock
against gravity!
[rambling deleting]
> That is too much disclosure already.
Indeed. Disclose less. Much less.
Don Kelly
in a magnetic field.
I suggest a good text on energy conversion might help you understand the
fallacies of your concepts. In case you don't realise this - this is a HINT.
The results of your experiments are quite easily explained and there is no
magic involved, except possibly in getting you to understand the
explanation. There is no violation of known principles such as conservation
of energy. No new and startling ideas- sorry.
Don Kelly
. dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.02041...@posting.google.com...
Duke McMullan N5GAX
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.02041...@posting.google.com...
> [EL]
> Hint.
> Closing an electric circuit discharges it.
> Closing a magnetic circuit *Charges* it.
> *
> Experiment #1:
> - Measure the potential difference in volts for a 'battery'.
> -Short circuit the battery with a heavy copper wire.
> -You get energy conversion in the form of heat.
> - Measure the potential difference in volts for the 'battery' again
> after many hors under short circuit conditions.
> - The battery is discharged and no more energy is available.
> *
v-- Should be Experiment #2, but anyone can make a typo. --d
> Experiment #1:
> -Measure the magnetic field strength of a permanent ' horseshoe'
> magnet.
> -Measure the maximum loud in kilograms of pure iron the magnet could
> hold against gravity.
> -Short circuit the magnet with a 'keeper' made of superpermalloy.
> -After one year come back and remove the keeper, and repeat the
> experiment.
> -The magnet is still powerful and capable of dewing work by picking up
> the same maximum load.
>
> Conclusion:
> Loading permanent magnets in the proper way preserves the potential
> difference of the field.
> This is in contrast to loading an electric power source.
Yep, and a major difference here is that there are no (known) magnetic
monopoles in nature. Neither is there the magnetic equivalent of a battery,
for that same reason.
There IS the electric equivalent of a magnet, however. It's called an
electret -- look it up. There's plenty of stuff about them on the net,
including making your own.
"Short" the electret with a conductive "keeper", and its field will last a lot
longer. Electrets tend to be short-lived, however, because they depend on the
separation of electrical monopoles (electrons and ions) for their field, and
the mobile monopoles (electrons; ions hardly migrate at all by comparison in
solid materials) eventually discharge the electret.
There's no comparison of a battery to a magnet. You can get work out of a
piece of metal by letting a magnet pull it into contact, but you have to put
that work back into the magfield when you pull the metal away from it. Of
course, if you can control the field (electromagnet), then you make this a much
more useful device -- a solenoid or a motor -- but the work has to be supplied
by the electricity, and certainly isn't coming from the magnetic field . . .
just _through_ the field.
A battery IS NOT the electrical equivalent of a magnet. No such equivalent is
known, and is almost certain to remain unknown as long as magnetic monopoles
are not observed.
Short a battery; you will definitely get heat, which is lost to the system.
Slap a keeper on a magnet ("short" is a bad word for it, really), and you'll
measure no appreciable heat emitted by it -- the experiments are on
sufficiently different systems that comparing them as you have must be
considered specious.
A keeper on an electret is precisely analogous to a keeper on a magnet -- and
you'll measure no continuous heat emitted from either.
Magnetic fields arise (as far as anyone knows) only as a result of a
circulating electric field -- the coils of an electromagnet or the aligned
spins of certain electrons in certain atoms or molecules. Even permanent
magnets lose their fields slowly, although modern ceramic magnets have such a
low decay rate that keepers are usually considered a waste of time. However,
some of the stronger ones are SO strong that keepers are used for safety, as
they "suck up" the intense part of the field. If there were magnetic monopoles
floating around, the decay would doubtless be faster -- and a LOT of things
would be different.
Another point of confusion -- while the magnet is holding a ferromagnetic load
"against gravity", it is doing no work. No work, no heat released. All the
work goes into moving the load against gravity, and once it's stuck against the
magnet, no more work is being done. That can be confusing, because an
electromagnet holding that same load is obviously releasing heat and consuming
electrical energy -- but it's doing no work _on_the_load_. That difference is
critical.
(A superconducting electromagnet would require energy to start it up, but
thereafter would become a "permanent electromagnet" as long as it was kept on
ice.)
Consider a block of wood with a another block of, say, lead sitting on top of
it. The block of lead may well outweigh the wood. But the wood block is doing
no work on the lead block -- nothing is moving; it's just sitting there -- and
no heat is being produced, even though it's "holding the load against gravity".
But _that_ situation (let's call it Experiment #3 ;^) doesn't seem mysterious.
Your conclusion doesn't stand up at all -- sorry. I know that potential theory
and the notion of work can be confusing, but this pair of experiments and your
conclusion are based far more critically on what you don't know than what you
do. You need to study the field more, and when you realize why your comparison
above is of the apples-and-oranges genus, you'll be well on your way. Not to
any profound "enlightenment" -- just to knowing what you're talking about and
working with.
I wish you luck with it.
Conserving charge and momentum,
d
--
Rap: the use of the human voice and mind as percussion instruments
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
Richard Bell
What is the work done by the magnet to hold up the iron?
Work equals force times distance, so the force is mg, where m is the mass
of the iron and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The distance is
zero, nada, zilch, the iron is not moving, so the work performed between
now and the end of time is exactly zero, there is no energy to channel and
extract.
Some amount of work may have be needed to place the iron against the magnet,
and the same amount of energy will be liberated when it is moved away, so
the net work is zero.
Richard Bell
EL <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>*
>Experiment #1:
>- Measure the potential difference in volts for a 'battery'.
>-Short circuit the battery with a heavy copper wire.
>-You get energy conversion in the form of heat.
>- Measure the potential difference in volts for the 'battery' again
>after many hors under short circuit conditions.
>- The battery is discharged and no more energy is available.
This result is unsurprising, the battery stores electrical charge as
chemical potential energy and placing the battery in a circuit encourages
the chemical reaction to progress in the direction of released energy.
>*
>Experiment #1:
>-Measure the magnetic field strength of a permanent ' horseshoe'
>magnet.
>-Measure the maximum loud in kilograms of pure iron the magnet could
>hold against gravity.
>-Short circuit the magnet with a 'keeper' made of superpermalloy.
>-After one year come back and remove the keeper, and repeat the
>experiment.
>-The magnet is still powerful and capable of dewing work by picking up
>the same maximum load.
>
>Conclusion:
>Loading permanent magnets in the proper way preserves the potential
>difference of the field.
>This is in contrast to loading an electric power source.
Problem, the magnet is not required to work to hold up the iron. While
the the magnetic field does some work pull the iron to its face, the same
amount of work must be done to dislodge the iron, the only energy is from
position, and it is conserved. The superpermalloy keeper is the same. Work
is only done to install and remove the keeper, and the net work is zero.
Magnetic flux is not equivalent to electric current, in the context that
you are using. It would be analogous to the situation where a conductor is
almost, but no quite in contact with a voltage source. The electric field
lines would form a similar distribution to a comparable magnetic circuit,
but no current would flow, if the electric field was constant. The japanese
actually used a set up like that for their radio microphones. It was
cheaper and lighter than a magnetic pick-up, and it confused the engineers
who tried to figure out how it worked, until they realised that a charge
was stored in the small wax disk. These "electret" microphones never wore
out, because the charge embedded in the wax did not do any work.
>
>I may discuss such *hints*. :-)
>Details are for *money making* or do you mind? ;-)
>EL
So long as you do not engage in fraud.
Don Lancaster
Which is one of two advantages to the magnetic tomcat.
Not only will they point north when you pick them up by the tail, but
you can also store them at night on the refrigerator.
Don Widders
Oh, brother! Speaking of idiots, why don't you and your secret research
buddies *Channel* gravity and tap into something REALLY BIG??? How much
ferromagnetic material is gravity holding to the Earth?
How do you manage the everyday tasks of dressing yourself in the morning and
such? Thank God I'm not your keeper!
Don W.
John Riley
>You put a dynamo in a waterfall and generate energy from a potential difference.
I'd bet more rust than energy :)
ATB John
CM
>
> > That is too much disclosure already.
>
> Indeed. Disclose less. Much less.
>
> > So I am not a 'Liar' as much as you are not an idiot, or are you?
:-)
> > EL
Well, "El" keeps threatening to go away and make us sorry
we laughed at him. Reminds me of a mad scientist in a bad move:
"They Laughed at me! But I'll show them!"
Problem is, he won't go away. And years from now, he'll still
be trying to "show us" and getting nowhere fast.
CM
CM
"EL"
> How long may a permanent magnet hold a ferromagnetic material
against
> gravity?
> If you had a method of *channeling* the field in the permeable media
> such that the remanence core is indifferent, do you or do you not
get
> an electric field, which corresponds to the rate of change in the
> magnetic field being *channeled*?
> Loading the electric circuit should induce a demagnetizing field in
> the *Channel*.
> May we *Utilize* this fact to *shut down* that *Channel* while we
> *Open* another? :-)
> That is too much disclosure already.
> So I am not a 'Liar' as much as you are not an idiot, or are you?
:-)
> EL
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
Having seen the material posted on their website, there is no real
secret. What they've got is an overly complicated and ineffecient
transformer with a permenent magnet embedded in it. They are using 2
coils to "switch" the permenent magnet field flux back and forth
between two "output" coils. It "works", but it takes more power to run
the switching coils than is produced in the output. Net loss. They
blithely ignore hysterisis losses (a phenomena Nikolai Tesla
discovered almost a century ago).
CM
CM
>> You need to stop making an utter fool of yourself by babbling about
what
>> other people need to do.
>>
>> Don Widders
>
> You obviously need to do the same thing. Decide on
> abstract thinking as a verbal tool for argument when your
> attempts at formal logic fail, or use abstract logic as
> your formal form of thinking.
>
> If I am so good at just "words", please try the
> relations between the words as the intended meaning.
>
> Douglas Eagleson
> Gaithersburg, MD USA
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
Mr. Eagleson is not really good with words, he just spins out endless
yards of bafflegab, in a futile attempt to sound intelligent.
Having seen the material posted on the "J. Naudin" website, there is
no real secret. What they've got is an overly complicated and
ineffecient transformer with a permenent magnet embedded in it. They
are using 2 coils to "switch" the permenent magnet field flux back and
forth between two "output" coils. It "works" (sort of), but it takes
more power to run the switching coils than is produced in the output.
Net loss. They blithely ignore hysterisis losses (a phenomena Nikolai
Tesla discovered almost a century ago).
In order to receive a patent, an item must "work". It doesn't have to
work well, or be efficient, or even be at all practical. You can find
the actual patent listed at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&
u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=6362718&OS
=6362718&RS=6362718
The application mentions several similar devices, some of which may be
more efficient, but all produce less power than goes in. The claim
that the "device having a capability, when operating, of producing
electrical power without an external application of input power
through input coils" (in "Backgroun Information, Field of Invention")
is simply wrong.
CM
Don Widders
news:Deqv8.14851$3z3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I'm fairly sure Mr. Eagleson is vainly attempting some form of humor because
no one can be that stupid without trying. There was a comedian many years
ago posing as a "Professor" -- I don't remember the name, but he was
amusing. Pretty much the same kind of double-talk; it just doesn't work as
well on Usenet as on television.
Magnetically biasing a core in which you want to induce a changing magnetic
flux seems like a bad idea. The bias only brings the core material closer
to magnetic saturation towards one polarity or the other which is to be
avoided.
About a month ago a lot of foolishness began in this group
(sci.energy.hydrogen) regarding Naudin's MEG, Meyer's WFC, EerGuy's EER...
I wonder what brought them all out?
Don W.
Duane C. Johnson
> > >> Don Widders
> > CM
I believe he was comedian "Professor Irwin Corey".
> Pretty much the same kind of double-talk; it just doesn't work
> as well on Usenet as on television.
> Magnetically biasing a core in which you want to induce a
> changing magnetic flux seems like a bad idea. The bias only
> brings the core material closer to magnetic saturation towards
> one polarity or the other which is to be avoided.
> About a month ago a lot of foolishness began in this group
> (sci.energy.hydrogen) regarding Naudin's MEG, Meyer's WFC,
> EerGuy's EER... I wonder what brought them all out?
> Don W.
Duane
--
Home of the $35 LED solar tracker.
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3
CUL8ER \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ Receiver
Powered by\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ [*]
Thermonuclear \ \Solar\Energy\from the Sun \ /////|
Energy(the Sun) \ \ \ \ \\ \ / / /\/ / /|
\ \ \ \ \ /\ / \/ / / / |
WA0VBE \ \ \ \ / /\ \/ / / \/ /|
Ziggy \ \ \/ / / \ \/ \/ /\ |
\ / \ \/ / /\ \\ / \ / / |
"Red Rock Energy" === ===\ / \ / \ === \ / ===
Duane C. Johnson, Designer=== === \ \ === / |
1825 Florence St Mirrors,Heliostats,Controls & Mounts|
White Bear Lake, Minnesota \ \ / |
USA 55110-3364 \ \ |
(651)635-5O65 work \ \ / |
(651)426-4766 home \ \ |
(413)556-659O Fax copyright \ / |
(651)583-2O62 Red Rock Energy Site (C)980907 ===\ |
red...@redrok.com (my primary email: address) \ |
red...@hotmail.com (Hotmail address) \ |
duane....@unisys.com (Unisys address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com/index.htm (My New Web site) \|
These are my opinions, and not that of Unisys Corp. ===
John
wrote:
>Having seen the material posted on the "J. Naudin" website, there is
>no real secret. What they've got is an overly complicated and
>ineffecient transformer with a permenent magnet embedded in it. They
>are using 2 coils to "switch" the permenent magnet field flux back and
>forth between two "output" coils. It "works" (sort of), but it takes
>more power to run the switching coils than is produced in the output.
>Net loss. They blithely ignore hysterisis losses (a phenomena Nikolai
>Tesla discovered almost a century ago).
What? A free energy nut that ignores something that Tesla did?
Oh, no! Say it ain't so!
Don Widders
news:3CBEA724...@redrok.com...
Yeah, Professor Irwin Corey, that's the guy! I wonder whatever became of
him?
Don W.
EL
> It is apparent that you know nothing about energy conversion in a battery or
> in a magnetic field.
Defective observers do exist too.
>
> I suggest a good text on energy conversion might help you understand the
> fallacies of your concepts. In case you don't realise this - this is a HINT.
[EL]
You should have suggested hypnotic sessions, they could work better.
>
> The results of your experiments are quite easily explained and there is no
> magic involved,
[EL]
I never suggested that there was any magic.
Your 'recital' is just a way to hide your ignorance.
>except possibly in getting you to understand the
> explanation.
[EL]
Or getting you to understand that my understanding is far superior to
your puny superficial blind touch.
>There is no violation of known principles such as conservation
> of energy.
[EL]
I never implied that there was any violation of conservation.
What violation is there in putting a dynamo in a waterfall?
>No new and startling ideas- sorry.
[EL]
Ah, but there is.
How to put a 'dynamo' in a 'magnetic-fall'. ;-)
EL
*
>
> Don Kelly
EL
[EL]
Now here is a man who has an eye on reality.
Thus we should build them from aluminum and ferrites. ;-)
EL
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.0204...@posting.google.com...
>
> > [EL]
> > How long may a permanent magnet hold a ferromagnetic material against
> > gravity?
> [Tony Wesley]
> You know, just today I saw that effect. Outside, dirt was holding a rock
> against gravity!
>
No wonder it is even holding your response.
Or is it your mind which holds rocks?
You failed to imagine that a magnet should be holding ferromagnetic
materials not to fall.
What does a rock on dirt has to do with analogies else than
demonstrating the relation between your butt and dirt?
EL
Don Widders
news:<o_Mu8.45381$ir6.1...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> What violation is there in putting a dynamo in a waterfall?
> >No new and startling ideas- sorry.
> [EL]
> Ah, but there is.
> How to put a 'dynamo' in a 'magnetic-fall'. ;-)
> EL
> *
> >
> > Don Kelly
"magnetic-fall" implies something moving and if that something is a magnetic
field, it doesn't take any new or startling ideas to exploit the energy of
the moving magnetic field.
I suppose there's no point in Don Kelly or Don Widders or anyone else trying
to show you how ignorant it sounds when you coin phrases like
"magnetic-fall" to describe stationary magnets. Since you won't listen to
those who clearly understand much better than you the principles with which
you pretend to be working, it's best you don't go shooting off your mouth
and making a fool of yourself until you're selling us all electricity from
your "magnetic-fall".
Don Widders
Don Widders
Thank you for sharing your astounding intellect! I've heard more than
enough. plonk.
Don W.
Tony Wesley
> You failed to imagine that a magnet should be holding ferromagnetic
> materials not to fall.
I can imagine it. It's not doing any work.
> What does a rock on dirt has to do with analogies else than
> demonstrating the relation between your butt and dirt?
The rock on dirt is also not doing any work. Similar to
your brain.
--
Tony Wesley
tony (at) tonywesley.com
Wonderful acoustic music: http://mp3.com/DaveAndTracy
John Riley
And hopefully attach a turbine to that dynamo :)
ATB John
Don Kelly
news:<o_Mu8.45381$ir6.1...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > It is apparent that you know nothing about energy conversion in a
battery or
> > in a magnetic field.
> [EL]
> Defective observers do exist too.
>
> >
> > I suggest a good text on energy conversion might help you understand the
> > fallacies of your concepts. In case you don't realise this - this is a
HINT.
> [EL]
> You should have suggested hypnotic sessions, they could work better.
----------
I was suggesting that you should try to understand present knowledge as a
starting point for your efforts. That is much more effective than hypnotism.
It appears that you prefer the bliss of ignorance. Learning something might
upset pet ideas.
-----------------
> >
> > The results of your experiments are quite easily explained and there is
no
> > magic involved,
> [EL]
> I never suggested that there was any magic.
> Your 'recital' is just a way to hide your ignorance.
> >except possibly in getting you to understand the
> > explanation.
-------
What explanation? - oh yes - it it can't be disclosed at the present -
------------------------>
[EL]
> Or getting you to understand that my understanding is far superior to
> your puny superficial blind touch.
---------------
Gee, I must have pissed in your porridge.
This is a pretty standard ploy- can't argue your point so try and be so
superor that it is impossible for a lesser being to understand. -BS
--------------
> >There is no violation of known principles such as conservation
> > of energy.
> [EL]
> I never implied that there was any violation of conservation.
> What violation is there in putting a dynamo in a waterfall?
> >No new and startling ideas- sorry.
> [EL]
> Ah, but there is.
> How to put a 'dynamo' in a 'magnetic-fall'. ;-)
-----------------------------
You are quite amusing, in a pitiful way.
I repeat that you have shown no basic understanding of magnetic fields and
energy. This has been pointed out by others as well. I won't repeat the
explanation as it was well done by others- it appears that you didn't
understand it.
In any case you can't seem to explain your ideas or point out fallacies in
the conventional concepts.
--
Don Kelly
Dan Bloomquist
Don Kelly wrote:
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Or getting you to understand that my understanding is far superior to
>>your puny superficial blind touch.
>>
> ---------------
> Gee, I must have pissed in your porridge.
> This is a pretty standard ploy- can't argue your point so try and be so
> superor that it is impossible for a lesser being to understand. -BS
> --------------
>
Oh, I don't know. tim perdue seems to think it works.
Best, Dan.
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > You failed to imagine that a magnet should be holding ferromagnetic
> > materials not to fall.
>
> I can imagine it. It's not doing any work.
>
> > What does a rock on dirt has to do with analogies else than
> > demonstrating the relation between your butt and dirt?
>
> The rock on dirt is also not doing any work. Similar to
> your brain.
[EL]
You must be able to imagine clean water sitting in a tank too.
It is not doing any work either, because no motion or distance is
involved.
Now when you open a tap at the bottom of the tank of CLEAN water, you
could put a wheel to generate motion for a dynamo.
Insulting me has nothing to do with your impotence and incompetence.
To know if my brain can do 'work' or no tell me what phenomenon are
you expecting.
Your brain is doing no work either, or let me no the *STROKE*. :-)
Your heart may have a stroke or two when we check the man standing at
the end.
EL
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tony Wesley" <to...@tonywesley.com> wrote in message
> news:<BTMu8.45391$%l3.42...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> > > "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7563cb80.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > [EL]
> > > > How long may a permanent magnet hold a ferromagnetic material against
> > > > gravity?
> *
> > > [Tony Wesley]
> > > You know, just today I saw that effect. Outside, dirt was holding a rock
> > > against gravity!
> > >
> > [EL]
> > No wonder it is even holding your response.
> > Or is it your mind which holds rocks?
> > You failed to imagine that a magnet should be holding ferromagnetic
> > materials not to fall.
> > What does a rock on dirt has to do with analogies else than
> > demonstrating the relation between your butt and dirt?
> >
> > EL
>
> Thank you for sharing your astounding intellect! I've heard more than
> enough. plonk.
>
> Don W.
[EL]
If you think that my smarmy is 'astounding intellect' by your
standards, then you must be the worst asshole I have 'read' in my
whole life.
You may get more insults from me if you continue to be such an
asshole, do you understand?
Now try to ask an intelligent question and you may find an equally
intelligent response.
Continue to be the shivering shmuks, which you are and I shall make
you the entertainment of the Usenet for as long as I may be
interested.
EL
EL
[EL]
You are absolutely correct.
Nevertheless, The concept of channeling a flux generated by a
permanent magnet is a very efficient technique.
Only the way that was demonstrated by those you have visited their
website is actually a waste of time and money demonstrating the wrong
technique.
Thank you.
EL
Richard Bell
>news:<o_Mu8.45381$ir6.1...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
>> It is apparent that you know nothing about energy conversion in a battery or
>> in a magnetic field.
>[EL]
>Defective observers do exist too.
Then how do you know that you are the correct observer?
>
>>
>> I suggest a good text on energy conversion might help you understand the
>> fallacies of your concepts. In case you don't realise this - this is a HINT.
>[EL]
>You should have suggested hypnotic sessions, they could work better.
>
>>
>> The results of your experiments are quite easily explained and there is no
>> magic involved,
>[EL]
>I never suggested that there was any magic.
>Your 'recital' is just a way to hide your ignorance.
You suggested that it takes energy for a magnet to hold on to iron. Either
permanent magnets are magical, or your suggestion is wrong.
Have you noticed that if you use a battery to keep a capacitor charged up,
and never discharge the capacitor, that the battery never runs down? It
is constantly maintaining an electric field, but so long as the capacitor
is not a lossy electrolytic, the battery is not discharged.
>
>>except possibly in getting you to understand the
>> explanation.
>[EL]
>Or getting you to understand that my understanding is far superior to
>your puny superficial blind touch.
Many of the people on this newsgroup have done experiments that have proved
that the Universe agrees with their "puny superficial blind touch". You
have described a device that contradicts Maxwells' equations. If those
are wrong, and everybody else's "blind touch" was similar to mine, we would
have noticed.
>
>>There is no violation of known principles such as conservation
>> of energy.
>[EL]
>I never implied that there was any violation of conservation.
>What violation is there in putting a dynamo in a waterfall?
None, once you remember that the potential energy of water came from the
sun. The energy from falling water is not free. It is just that we are not
the ones that pay for it (Hydroelectric dams are the best way to harness
solar power, as the storage problem is well solved).
>>No new and startling ideas- sorry.
>[EL]
>Ah, but there is.
>How to put a 'dynamo' in a 'magnetic-fall'. ;-)
>EL
The problem is how do you arrange for an external agent to potential
energy to the system? A magnetic fall will only release as much energy
as is added to the system, just like a waterfall.
Littlefish
fire!!! 2000 patents I believe.
Littlefish
"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cbea957....@netnews.att.net...
Richard Bell
>You are absolutely correct.
>Nevertheless, The concept of channeling a flux generated by a
>permanent magnet is a very efficient technique.
>Only the way that was demonstrated by those you have visited their
>website is actually a waste of time and money demonstrating the wrong
>technique.
>Thank you.
>
>EL
I have an experiment for you, EL. Take an electro-magnet and measure its
power consumption when it is holding no iron. Repeat the experiment with the
electromagnet holding up a large piece of iron. Finally, do the measurement
one last time, but with the magnet upside down and the iron on top of it.
Oops, I should have mentioned that the electro-magnet is DC powered (is there
any other kind?).
The classical model may have all three power consumptions (I would have to do
some calculations, and neither my calculator, nor my textbook is handy) equal;
however, the two tests with the iron will be identical. Your model requires
that the electromagnet draw more power to hold the iron against gravity, than
when the iron is resting on the magnet.
I think we need to be careful on power measurements, so the current should
be held constant, and the measurements be the voltage required to drive the
current through the coil.
Don Widders
"Richard Bell" <rlb...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:a9p1gd$nns$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...<Snip>
> Have you noticed that if you use a battery to keep a capacitor charged up,
> and never discharge the capacitor, that the battery never runs down?
If you never discharge the capacitor, then the battery is not keeping the
capacitor charged -- it is simply never being discharged. Have you ever
noticed how quickly the battery on your camera's flash unit must be replaced
or recharged? All it's doing is charging a capacitor which is discharged
every time you take a photo.
> It is constantly maintaining an electric field, but so long as the
capacitor
> is not a lossy electrolytic, the battery is not discharged.
In other words, as long as the capacitor is never discharged, it never needs
to be charged. The battery is not "constantly maintaining an electric
field". Whether the battery remains connected or is disconnected, the
voltage across the battery and across the capacitor remain equal.
Don W.
Don Widders
gas. The case could just as easily be made that if Tesla had his way you'd
be without lights unless you were within 20 miles of a 'sending facility'
and radio would never (could never) have been used for communications!
Don W.
"Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wyUv8.44993$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Ken Smith
Richard Bell <rlb...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
[....]
>I have an experiment for you, EL. Take an electro-magnet and measure its
>power consumption when it is holding no iron. Repeat the experiment with the
>electromagnet holding up a large piece of iron. Finally, do the measurement
>one last time, but with the magnet upside down and the iron on top of it.
>Oops, I should have mentioned that the electro-magnet is DC powered (is there
>any other kind?).
Yes AC powered electromagnets are actually more common than DC powered.
>
>The classical model may have all three power consumptions (I would have to do
>some calculations, and neither my calculator, nor my textbook is handy) equal;
After the initial rise in current, all 3 cases are the same for the steady
state. Only the resistance matters to the DC. The resistance is not
effected by the magnetic field (not enough for anyone to measure
anyway) so the power is simply V^2/R as it would be for any resistor.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
Richard Bell
My point was that it does not take any energy to maintain a potential field,
like that produced by a permanent magnet.
Nonnaho
news:7563cb80.02041...@posting.google.com...
> "Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote in message
news:<ubut9a3...@corp.supernews.com>...
<snip>
> > Thank you for sharing your astounding intellect! I've heard more than
> > enough. plonk.
> >
> > Don W.
>
> [EL]
> If you think that my smarmy is 'astounding intellect' by your
> standards, then you must be the worst asshole I have 'read' in my
> whole life.
> You may get more insults from me if you continue to be such an
> asshole, do you understand?
> Now try to ask an intelligent question and you may find an equally
> intelligent response.
> Continue to be the shivering shmuks, which you are and I shall make
> you the entertainment of the Usenet for as long as I may be
> interested.
>
> EL
Save your breath, he "plonk"ed you. Don't you know what that means?
Nonnaho
Don Widders
We're in agreement. There is no potential energy when the iron in on the
magnet because the magnet has attracted the iron as far as the iron can be
attracted. Iron on magnet is really the 'discharged' condition. Pulling
the iron away from the magnet would be like 'charging' the iron/magnet
system. Just as when a weight is on the floor it can't go any farther, so
it has no potential energy. Lift it to the ceiling to charge it. To
consider magnetism a source of energy is... well, you know what it is!
Don W.
fkasner
"Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wyUv8.44993$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
What an idiotic claim! There was prior to Tesla oil lamps, manufactured gas
lamps, natural gas lamps, gas stoves, DC electrical systems. Sooner or later
somebody would have implemented an AC distribution system. Edison's DC
system was impractical for large scale electricity distribution. It's just
that Tesla was smart enough to get to it long before anyone else would have
done it. His later years were one where his brain was addled. Too bad. He
was a brilliant young man. Even with a DC Edison system we would not have
been cooking outdoors and in the dark. Just a lot of distributed power
plants.
FK
fkasner
Where can I get one of those batteries that never self discharge and only
have to be charged once to remain charged for every?
FK
fkasner
Apparently you do not know that a ferromagnetic material requires some
energy to organize the paramagnetic matter into clusters of ferromagnetic
matter. This is why you can demagnetize a "magnet" but you can't change its
paramagnetism without a chemical change. It takes energy to make a
ferromagnetic material. That energy can be lost by a variety of means.
FK
Oh, and BTW, the spelling of the word is shmuck not shmuk. I suspect you
don't know the real origin of the word and its meaning.
FK
fkasner
Common error. "Voltage" does not drive current through a conductor. Voltage
is the energy per unit charge expended when that charge is passed through
the conductor. You've read too many elementary science books that think the
potential difference is some kind of power tool or concept.
FK
Don Kelly
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.0204...@posting.google.com...
--------------
In what way is it efficient.? Please elucidate.
What you have in your statements above is pure handwaving and, as has been
pointed out before, the permanent magnet simply provides a bias which
doesn't affect the input/output behaviour of the device except in a negative
way due to saturation. It is really quite straightforward.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
Don Kelly
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
"Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wyUv8.44993$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> If it wasn't for tesla you would be sitting in the dark cooking over a
wood
> fire!!! 2000 patents I believe.
> Littlefish
----------
Of which the only ones that are of any real concern are related to the
polyphase system and the induction motor. Tesla should be justifiably be
honoured for these-not the stuff produced after he went around the bend,
mentally. Whether we would be sitting in the dark is questionable- both AC
and DC generation existed withput Tesla and the transformer also was not
his invention.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
Tony Wesley
news:a9q8hv$s1h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Richard Bell" <rlb...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
> news:a9p67o$q9i$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
[snip]
> > Oops, I should have mentioned that the electro-magnet is DC powered (is
[snip]
> > I think we need to be careful on power measurements, so the current should
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > be held constant, and the measurements be the voltage required to drive the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > current through the coil.
>
> Common error. "Voltage" does not drive current through a conductor. Voltage
> is the energy per unit charge expended when that charge is passed through
> the conductor. You've read too many elementary science books that think the
> potential difference is some kind of power tool or concept.
> FK
Okay, I'll bite. I think I'm guilty of this common error. Educate me.
Constant current, DC voltage, the relationship between voltage and
power is what?
Duncan Wood
Zinc Air ones are pretty close
Chris Torek
>>news:a9p67o$q9i$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
[later, with added emphasis on "current ... held constant"]
>>>and the measurements be the voltage required to drive the current
>>>through the coil.
>"fkasner" <fka...@enteract.com> wrote in message
>news:a9q8hv$s1h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>Common error. "Voltage" does not drive current through a conductor. Voltage
>>is the energy per unit charge expended when that charge is passed through
>>the conductor. You've read too many elementary science books that think the
>>potential difference is some kind of power tool or concept.
>>FK
In article <dM2w8.11209$ro5.9...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
Tony Wesley <to...@tonywesley.com> wrote:
>Okay, I'll bite. I think I'm guilty of this common error. Educate me.
>Constant current, DC voltage, the relationship between voltage and
>power is what?
I think what FK is getting at above is that it is not the "voltage
driving the current", so much as the voltage being a side effect
of the energy that is driving the current.
In a constant-current fixed-resistance situation, the difference
is academic at best. This difference is probably easiest to
visualize (at least, it is for me) by using the water analogy:
water can be under pressure without actually flowing. Likewise,
you can have a voltage potential between two points, even if there
is no current flow. If voltage were strictly determined by current
flow, you would have to divide by zero. :-)
(Of course, with impulse calculus, you can probably make it all
work out anyway...)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com +1 510 234 3167
http://63.193.109.35/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
"nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com" *is* my address (one of many actually).
Tony Wesley
news:a9qghi$ctm$1...@elf.eng.bsdi.com...
> I think what FK is getting at above is that it is not the "voltage
> driving the current", so much as the voltage being a side effect
> of the energy that is driving the current.
>
> In a constant-current fixed-resistance situation, the difference
> is academic at best. This difference is probably easiest to
> visualize (at least, it is for me) by using the water analogy:
> water can be under pressure without actually flowing.
The analogy has always worked for me. I think the analogy for
our situation is a constant volume (current) of water with different
pressure (voltage).
> Likewise,
> you can have a voltage potential between two points, even if there
> is no current flow.
Sure, I'm with you on that.
> If voltage were strictly determined by current
> flow, you would have to divide by zero. :-)
>
> (Of course, with impulse calculus, you can probably make it all
> work out anyway...)
--
Tony Wesley
tony (at) tonywesley.com
Postmodern Mythic American Music: http://mp3.com/DaveAndTracy