it appears that a 140 pound coil like a window motor configuration will have hundreds or thousands of uF of capacitance... which kinda makes sense as there is soooo much surface area

It is stated on the book his smaller unit acted like a inductor then a  capastior after x frequncy. This k it was above 5000?
~Russ

Newman sais somthing I really like.

He allways sais

" why?  Becuse I'm an honist man"

That statement is something you don't here much. Why? 

Be cause he is saying he is honist with him self.
Aka. The truth don't lie. And he is willing to except the answer with all his hart. Be it wright or wrong. He is an honist man.

I can agree with that 110%

Thank about that for a while. Have you really been honist with your self and the things around you?  The outcome be what it is. Are you willing to except it? 

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on November 11th, 2017, 01:02 PM

The outcome be what it is. Are you willing to except it?

Do I have any choice?   I never did in the past.  I can look at my "wall of epic fail" and accept the simple truth I did not know what I was doing when I built all those devices (and probably still don't).

What I see in both Newman and Meyer are two guys that built their confidence because what they thought, what they came to believe matched very closely with their reality.  At some point both of them had that feeling where they knew they were right, any doubts they had were long gone.  Getting to that point is the hard part.  I have always had doubts and probably always will.  Maybe skeptics shouldn't be doing this kind of research.  Could be late in the game to be finding that out, but I'll accept it too.

Good answer Matt. I got that wall too ( been draging it around with me too)  however each of those things thought me how NOT to do it. Or gave me a clue what to do next.

Personialy I feel Stan was 1/2 as coffedent as Newman was. Just my view on it.

I'm leanning on Newmans work with full cofedence.  I kinda get that feeling that makes your hair stand up that I'm supose to be carrying it on..  (Spokkie) 

Its all in the timing.

Still more to do though. For me anyway. My brain is still learning...  Still rediscovering....

One day at a time.

~Russ

The structure of a typical Italian sonnet of the time included two parts that together formed a compact form of "argument". First, the octave, forms the "proposition", which describes a "problem", or "question", followed by a sestet (two tercets), which proposes a "resolution". Typically, the ninth line initiates what is called the "turn", or "volta", which signals the move from proposition to resolution. Even in sonnets that don't strictly follow the problem/resolution structure, the ninth line still often marks a "turn" by signaling a change in the tone, mood, or stance of the poem.

lifes a sonnet guys

How about that. Ed might spot on after all.  ;)

~Russ 

I found a roll of 22AWG with both ends sticking out. It measures 78 ohms (approx 4830 feet). It measures about 1.2 uF capacitance
i pulsed it with a relay 30ms on 30 ms off with a 13V LiFe battery attached. scope shot below... first pulses is 13V ON, second set (larger amplitude) 13V OFF then repeat

I observed pulses over 1500V peak to peak with 100:1 2000V scope probe
Inductance of the roll of wire measured 1.3 Henry

about 9.5 pounds of copper

How about limiting the current!? 

just the internal resistance of the battery, the coil, and a 4 inch piece of small connecting wire (don't know the gage)

pics

Quote from ~Russ on November 11th, 2017, 05:37 PM

How about limiting the current!?

so I am open to suggestions...

Circuits work best if you match your load resistance to the internal resistance of the battery.

The battery should be more like a capacitor. So in this circuit the charge don't blow up the battery. ;)  ~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on November 11th, 2017, 04:49 PM

How about that. Ed might spot on after all.  ;)

Edward Leedskalnin?

He also said something to the effect that he harvested far more power from iron than he ever did from copper.

Quote

Re: The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 2017
« Reply #166, 2 hours ago »
Quote from ~Russ Today at 12:49 AM
How about that. Ed might spot on after all.  ;)
Edward Leedskalnin?

He also said something to the effect that he harvested far more power from iron than he ever did from copper.

Iron can loose 3 electrons from its shell
Copper can loose one I believe.

Just so we are all clear. If your asking this question then you haven't "mastered" whats in the book.

Hehe. (Ok I'm. Sorry. That's harsh) 

Lol I must have woke up on the good side of the bed.

Seriously though.

Think about it.
More mass. More output. 
Iron makes for more inductance too.

However. I'm quite sure that with out the length of wire  we need higher switching speeds.

Also the wire and iron need to work together.  To much iron no good. 

When all the people who saw joes units run.  One of the first thing they said was that its got no core. So it can't work.

But we all should see that at some scale the copper its self over comes that and we also know that no core seems to be best. But a core gives us advantages. (Slower speeds at less copper and more focused flux.)

If I wanted to build a 10hp motor.  I would probibaly not build a 10,000lb motor out of pure copper. And magents.

However if I did not want to pay to run that 10hp motor. I'd second guess my desissions.

If I'm an honist man. I'd see that there was ONLY ONE device iv EVER seen that is well EXPLAINED that was shown to WORK. And that was PROVEN by 30 others that agree it works. 

Never ever have I see so much "magic" not appear in something I was looking at in this research. 

All the smoke and mirrors are gone. I'm not sure how else it could not be...   

Any hoo just a bit of motivation for the day.

God Bless us All

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on November 12th, 2017, 09:03 AM

Just so we are all clear. If your asking this question then you haven't "mastered" whats in the book.

...

If I'm an honist man. I'd see that there was ONLY ONE device iv EVER seen that is well EXPLAINED that was shown to WORK. And that was PROVEN by 30 others that agree it works.

What I haven't mastered is how the actual conversion following the formula of E = MC² actually works.  I can see a correlation based on momentum, but I can't see the actual mechanics of it taking place.  Maybe this is why I still do not see the need for massive amounts of copper and magnets.  What specifically is determining the ratio of mass to energy conversion?  There should be some physical property here that sets this ratio.  I don't see it.

At this time. (Last night when I randomly woke up,  and yes. I was laughing at my self thinking " well duh! ")   

I saw it.

Its a direct conversion of mass to energy. Just as he stated.  On 100% conversion process...

It just clicked.

The energy we are using is not coming from know where.

Its actually commign from the copper its self.

You can "cut off" some. Of thses "gyroscopic particles " AFTER there out of the wire. And use them some where else. (In this case there used internialy for the most part) 

If you try to use them externialy you and I have both seen how hard it is to do this. (We try to capture them in caps and what not) and as you said in the past "the dialetric just shoots off in to space" I can't say its the Dielectric but is is the feild for sure. That's where the gyroscopic particsls are...

So when Sonnet stated there are 3 more free eleteons in iron than copper. It make sence. However yoi have to get them out of the iron first. This is not as eazy as the copper. In the way he is doing it.

I'm not convinced this has anything to do with eletroncs directly but rather this over view of "gyroscopic particles " is enough to agree on. 


What's the ratio...  E=MC2

That is ezactaly the ratio.  Thats why he drills it so hard.  Its that simple.

More copper.  More particsls to alighn and move. Out of the copper.  The more energy it has.

Not sure I can explain it more clearly at the moment.

The reasion he uses so much is to make it work with high voltage,  and low current. Higher resystance The lower the current the slower it moves through the wire. But you still need some or the alignment won't happen.

Then you can turn it on and off before it Makes The loop...  And you don't lose it... It gose back to the battery...  (Still trying to figure this out with the commutator though) 

Re read the commutator section of the book. Ready it 5 times. Or until it clicks chapter 9

~Russ

Yes Russ yes...I know you do fully understand now....you get why I was saying current is your enemy. And you see if only by a relationship how the energy is acquired. Keep going.

When I was quoting page 59-onwards to commentator chapter.I was quoting pdf page number not book page number....sorry just realised my mistake and no one said unless you already understood..you do need to read and re-read it to get it.....good luck

Yeah sonnet. Its coop becuse I really did have alot of this in my head. And this process has taken along time. But I do see. ;)   

I also may have been pointing to PDF page numbers.

Funny all those thoughts came before reading and there it was. Explained in a way anyone should be able to see it.

Along with your spring attachment idea. I really. Like the way you worried that.

Becuse with springs.  The more you put in the more they stretch...  Hence the feild strength

And with copper at some point you can get them all out.  But with iron that takes alot. More input.   And more then needed = heat.  Or waist.

And somthing tells me it don't take hardly anything to get them out of the copper.

Current = spin alignment.(only need a little bit)
Voltage = pressure ( more the better?)
~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on November 12th, 2017, 11:20 AM

What's the ratio...  E=MC2

That is ezactaly the ratio.  Thats why he drills it so hard.  Its that simple.

That's the maximum ratio.  A total if you will.  If we "burn up" all the copper (M), we will have extracted (E) amount of energy.

We don't get all that energy at once, nor do we "burn up" all the copper at once.  The ratio I do not understand is how much copper is needed to get X amount of power--power being energy per unit of time.

Seems to me the formula E = MC² establishes time, since speed of light is typically measured in meters per second.  And since this value is squared, that indicates some sort of acceleration--a change in speed per unit of time.

I just can't see the relationship.  Must have something to do with the rate of rotation or the distance traveled.  If it's distance traveled, then we should be better with shorter lengths of wire--less energy, but being delivered in much quicker intervals.  Less energy arriving faster is more power, provided the speed overcomes the volume.

Anyway Russ, I'm glad this is all making good sense to you.  I'm still pretty lost.  With Joe's approach, I don't see any possibility of self powered drones flying around, at least not two ton ones.