Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The circuit under discussion was the one with a single ground wire
attached and no input. It is based on the circuit shown in video #7. It
is described farther down on that page.
The one with a battery is yet something else again.
The circuit is FAR from "something else again" and in fact was added
later for the (apparent) sole purpose of countering skeptics' objection
of capacitive coupling.
It seems to me that the commentators here have been too quick to
assume that the effect is conservative. Isn't the purpose of this
forum to seek out anomalies, and this process may involve some trust
in experimenters with very extensive experience in these things to
have already eliminated obvious inputs.
It's just that -- "... have already eliminated obvious inputs" -- which
is under discussion. In fact, Ron has never actually asserted that all
obvious inputs have been eliminated.
Or else you haven't been listening.
As I said, the circuit being discussed extensively here was the one
which apparently had just a ground wire attached and no inputs. It is
by far the most anomalous item mentioned in the thread -- everything
else discussed in this thread is just arguing over whether the input and
output balance; OTOH if there's no input at all then it's a clear cut
case of something for nothing. Don't you find that more interesting
than the (possible) ability to pull more out of an alkaline cell than
the manufacture's specs claim?
The battery was necessary because the Collpitts oscillator used is not
efficient. He used an old battery. Yes it would be great if he had
access to a very high efficient tunable oscillator or op-amp but that is
unrealistic at this stage -- i.e. for a single underfunded
experimenter to have access to the whole panoply of solutions that a
large lab would have.
I don't see why you think it's strange to try to pursue this to some
sort of conclusion before going off on yet another tangent to look at
yet another different circuit.
The "yet another circuit" was added to dispense with your (the skeptics)
unrealistic objection to the previous circuit.
Jones
