Questions about Free Energy

Donn said:
garys,
I blush to admit my highscool science does not permit me to understand:

And my calculus is covered in 15 years of dust...

Could you expand on what 'differential' means here, it seems a valid point to press.

Thanks.
:o
Click to expand...
Simply that an increase in voltage (a "difference") causes the current to change ("difference" from before v. after) in the opposite direction that Ohm's Law predicts.

If you make R = del(E)/del(i), you will get a negative answer with this setup. But at any given E and i you will have a very positive R.

For example, say that at 10 volts the gadget drew 0.5 amps, and at 5 volts it drew 1 amp. That would give:

R = (10-5)/(0.5-1), or -1 Ohm.

An ordinary resistor would have the current vary proportianatly with the applied voltage, so with the same current at 10 volts, it would draw 0.25 amps at 5 volts. Its differential resistance would be:

R = (10-5)/(0.5-0.25), or 20 Ohms.

That help?
 
Lots of good comments, thank you all.

Garys,
I almost follow your example except that when I do:
R = (10-5) / (0.5 - 1) = 5 / (-0.50) = -10
I get -10 Ohms and not -1 Ohm. Have I erred?
Also, as your 2 sums seem to show, the way to get a negative Ohm result is to play with the numbers so that there is a negative number for the change in I (delta I).
How could I (amps) be a negative number? Should the formula not 'stop' when I <=0 for example?
In your second sum you use 0.25 as the magic number and that results in a positive Ohm, this being a normal resistor.

I guess I don't understand what Naudin is doing to make this result show a negative result - although I understand from ktesibios that he makes lots of mistakes and doesn't take well to argument, so maybe he is just pulling a fast one here.

At the moment I can say to W, "Naudin is using differential measurements and this is not the correct way to measure the resistance, it causes negative numbers by mathematics, but this is unrelated to the real world." Or something like that.

ktesibios and 69dodge,
thanks for that interpretation of Chung's work. This is what I was looking for; using knowlegable people as filters to get this high-brow stuff into layman terms! I can now tell W that Chung does not see this as negative resistance and that there is no free energy implication.

I will check the links to the MEG stuff, and I hope that he has removed them so that I can mention this too - W is a Naudin/MEG fan. He has built that "flyer" and uses it as an example of anti-gravity based on techniques that are refused by Science and suppressed by etc... etc.. etc...

Huntsman,
I am a fan of the 'cut the crap and show me the effect' approach. However, W is saying that the actual machine to deliver Free Energy (with Capitals!) has not been built yet and that the technology for its development is being suppressed.
So, I can't use this argument, yet... :)

On that same subject, what I am trying to do is saw through the stilts that are propping up his conception of Free Energy. I picture his vast and complex conspiracy as some kind of maniacal tree-house perched atop several slender trunks of conviction. I want to weaken, if not sever those trunks so that he must see that the tree-house does not stand any more; that is was all delusion.
So, I aim at the basic tenets he advertises; the MEG, Negative resistors, This Ohm's law thing, ZEP, and Tesla.

On the ZEP-front. I get the idea, from your posts, that it is some kind of very theoretical concept that *might* produce tiny amounts of energy on an atomic level (like wall-plugs for nanites) and that this is all *highly* speculative and still being worked on. Is this a fair take on it?

Interesting snippet about Tesla, CurtC, thanks. I did get to that Straight Dope article (while getting email) and it implies that there is a lot about Tesla and his legend that could do with some unbiased, skeptical sweeping.
Tesla is still a tough one to argue against due to all the "US army removes inventions", "Death Ray" (and so on) stuff. I guess the approach has to be one of "There may have been wonderful inventions unknown to us, there may not have been. We just don't know. Maybe the US army does, but they sure haven't used any of them since then..."

Thanks again
Donn

And, no, I object!
- It is NOT invisible monkeys that cause gravity - they cause levity! It's invisible Apples that cause gravity...
:p
 
Re: Re: Re: Questions about Free Energy

tracer said:

I thought the complex-number equivalent of resistance was called impedance, and consisted of resistive impedance (the real part) and reactive impedance (the imaginary part).
Click to expand...

Yep, that's true. Sorry for my abuse of terminology, but I didn't want to throw another term in when I thought "complex resistance" would do. By "complex resistance" I meant "impedance".
 
Donn said:
Lots of good comments, thank you all.

Garys,
I almost follow your example except that when I do:
R = (10-5) / (0.5 - 1) = 5 / (-0.50) = -10
I get -10 Ohms and not -1 Ohm. Have I erred?
Also, as your 2 sums seem to show, the way to get a negative Ohm result is to play with the numbers so that there is a negative number for the change in I (delta I).
How could I (amps) be a negative number? Should the formula not 'stop' when I <=0 for example?
In your second sum you use 0.25 as the magic number and that results in a positive Ohm, this being a normal resistor.

I guess I don't understand what Naudin is doing to make this result show a negative result - although I understand from ktesibios that he makes lots of mistakes and doesn't take well to argument, so maybe he is just pulling a fast one here.

At the moment I can say to W, "Naudin is using differential measurements and this is not the correct way to measure the resistance, it causes negative numbers by mathematics, but this is unrelated to the real world." Or something like that.
Click to expand...
Did I mess it up? Hmm, ok, start over.

Condition one: 10 volts applied, 0.5 amps draw.

Condition two, 5 volts applied, 1 amp draw

del(E) = E1 - E2 = 10 - 5 = 5
del(i) = i1 - i2 = 0.5 - 1 = -0.5

Rdiff = del(E)/del(i) = 5/-0.5 = -10 Ohms

Yep, I screwed it up...:coal:

I think I did the math right for the "normal" resistor, and its differential resistance is equal to its standard resistance.

As for stopping if you get a negative number, there's no need for that. If the Rdiff is negative, no big deal. It is for gas discharge lamps, amplifiers and spark gaps. Unusual to find in in other things, true (that's why it was newsworthy), but the math is the math.

Regarding Naudin's measurements being wrong, it's likely they aren't but again, it's just not a big deal nor does it certainly imply any sort of free energy. This negative differential resistance only shows an unusual CHANGE of current with a change in voltage, but in every case the device is absorbing electrical power and creating heat, nothing new.

That negative curve would only exist over a limited range of voltages, too, as it's very unlikely the current would contine to fall to zero as the voltage was increased indefinitely. The current flow in any case would NEVER go the "wrong way" against the voltage, which would imply real negative resistance. That couldn't happen with a passive device.
 
Donn:

I do understand that you are trying to get him to reason and change the underlying assumptions. However, the idea of a conspiracy vast enough and powerful enough to supress something like this, without even a disgruntled janitor to leak the secret, should already fall under the weight of it's own illogic. While I do admire your determinination, and the question here has brought up a lot of interesting electrical points, I don't think you'll convince your friend. I am, admittedly, somewhat cynical, though, so by all means keep trying :). I just believe that if someone has so little logic or critical thinking at their command that they can believe in a global conspiracy to supress (and not use) what would be the key to global domination (far more so than any cartel currently existing), then logic and reasoning won't affect them.

But good luck anyway. Even though I consider it hopeless, there is nobility in fighting on ;)
 
Sorry I don't have more time to answer this.
If you notice the resistor and the carbon fiber bundle are measured two ways . 1 with a stable DC source, the 2nd as an sum of an ac signal.
Also notice that the measured Ma across the junction D-B is arbitrary with no corresponding floor. (ground ) in circuits under test normally there is a ground bond ( excluding isolated-medical or nuclear stuff ) so all have a common form of reference.

When I do bench electronics and measure a power supply and it says neg on its output , I reverse the probes. the thing ( most importantly) which did not occur in this "experiment" was to put the "negative resistances" under a load . It was all static and arbitrary. attach a power supply to the "negative resistance" and see if the power produced is greater then the energy input and summed expenditures of the system.

edit to add :
damn,damn wife is givin me the evil eye.
If you look at the set up the measured junction shows an INDUCED voltage.
See also Negitive resistance Tunnel diode, a well know QM effect.
 
Well, my well-planned "internet weekend" has been hi-jacked by house-maintenance and painting and aaarrrghhh!

I have managed to read the various links W sent to me and I confess that the graphs and terms are just too far over my head.
I have re-read what you all have posted here and I think that even if I don't know the volts and amps kind of details, the basic message is:
1. The "Negistor" still produces heat by 'sinking' power. No magic here.
2. Ohm's law is a bitch and no-one without serious degrees and years of study has any right to to pick holes in it.
3. I am till fuzzy on the ZEP front.
4. Tesla seems to be a can of worms that has not received proper skeptical treatment on the net - well that I can find.

I will begin a reply to W when I have some more info; which, I guess, means waiting a few days because you lot have a life and don't post on the weekend!

Donn
 
Re: Re: Re: Questions about Free Energy

Brian said:


Um. Is it just a glorified water-wheel?
Click to expand...

Sort of. It's a bank of water turbines. That's not what Tesla invented.

Tesla invented the AC generator. AC makes possible long distance power transmission and continental power grids.
 
Well, this thread has died.
I have not been able to learn as much as I had hoped, I guess it was too much to chew.
The chap I am arguing with has also gone into go-slow on replying to my emails, so I am going to give-up (as per advice!) and do other things instead.
I will point him to this thread, so that he can (if he dares) try his arguments with you lot directly.

Thanks
Donn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom