has this all been checked? someone posted it today on overunity as "having been updated". any of you that are able to concentrate on, well, pages and pages of data, will probably be able to tell the rest of us if he has posted something new on november? http://67.76.235.52/DrStiffler/ce4.asp these images, to me, seemed new:
*Interesting Portable Light Design* *Fig: PL01* *Notes on preceding circuit. Capacitor C7 is shown as 400pf, this capacitor in many cases can be reduced and not affect overall results. It is not advised that the value be decreased below 82pF. Transistor Q1 is shown as a 2N2222, although a 2N3904 which is rated to 300MHz may work better if available. ** *The goal of this research is a 'Self Powering' circuit* *Fig: SP01* *Fig: SP02* * Fig: SP0x* No localized external power source is used in the following two circuits. It is currently unknown how the circuit is being powered. Except for an earth ground connection, no other connections are made. The aluminum pan in which the circuit is sitting is floating and not connected to the earth ground or the circuit or circuit board. ** * Fig: SP0y * When this circuit is actively powering the LEDS a very intense field exists around the circuit and abruptly ends at approximately a meter from the circuit. A radio receiver tuned to the emission from the circuit will no longer detect the radiation at the drop off point. ** * Fig: SP03* *Scope image of signal across R1* ** In the above scope image it is easily seen that there is a peak current to ground from the circuit of ~450mA maximum to minimum of of ~105mA. This is extraordinary current for a free-floating circuit. The signal displayed appears to be modulated by ~2.64MHz. Assuming an error induced by the scope accuracy it appears the primary signal is ~7 times the modulation, where 18.7/2.64 = 7.083. What adds to the confusion is the following chart derived from work with the earlier circuits. Primary response peaks do not match the 18.7MHz as indicated above. On 01/11/2007, R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, everyone calm down before somebody says something foolish. > My offer for independent evaluation to Ron stands . > Anyone ever heard of a mexican standoff? It is created when a bunch of > drunks in the Dime Box saloon all cock back on their sawed off shotguns. > It > only results in losing good customers and breaks all the whiskey bottles. > Richard > > > > > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > >> Stephen, > >> > >> I don't know where you come from, but in Texas (so I have been told) if > >> you call someone a "con man" you better hope that you are a better shot > >> than he is... > > > > You didn't answer the question, Jones. Your response amounts to saying > > insulting someone will make them mad, and people in Texas carry guns. > > > > Is Ron seriously threatening to sue us all? Please answer the question. > > > > > >>> Jones Beene wrote: > >>>> > >>>> To: Vortex Members On 11/1/2007 > >>>> From: Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler > >>> > >>>> [ ... ] > >>> > >>>> I am so against a Litigious Society, yet often it has a side that is > >>>> the > >>>> only way to receive redress in cases such as this. > >>>> > >>>> The same people that advise me on the legality of my work are most > >>>> excited to assist me in this endeavor. > >>> > >>> Is Ron threatening to sue us all for questioning his circuit and > >>> objecting to his methods??? > >>> > >>> That has REALLY "crossed the line". > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: > > 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date: 11/1/2007 6:01 AM > > > > > > -- ∞
