(OPEN SOURCE) My Dielectric Displacement Energy Framework

[NE666]

Something can be open source and proprietary at the same time, in the sense that it lets you see what's inside, but what you will see is not necessarily yours, and not necessarily free to use, or to resell or whatever.

Without trying to put words in the mouths of others, for me the issue here is that the OP *won't* 'let you see what's inside'. When asked for a simple schematic to allow better examination of the claim (and remember, it was the OP who chose to post here asking for 'validation', no one went over to their project and just started nosing around in it) it was met with a refusal.

Personally, I can't reconcile that with any concept of 'open source' that I recognise.

But anyway, why so many replies are going rude? 

I'm not condoning that we start f'ing and cursing each other out at the drop of a hat but I can very well understand why some people are irritated. A person comes here asking for engagement, which means asking others to give their time, knowledge and experience FOC. Then, when the answers given aren't what they wanted to hear, their immediate response is to to accuse the provider of being too 'dogmatically ignorant' to understand.

People are just getting fed up with it.

[/quote]

[dielectric_within]

You say (OPEN SOURCE) My Dielectric Displacement Energy Framework

But then also lock it all down with:

My schematics are proprietary, PCB designs, inventions and other IP belong to me and me alone.

 

Exactly this.

To the OP, please fuck right off, and keep on fucking right off until you have completely fucked off. Then fuck off some more, just to be sure.

Something can be open source and proprietary at the same time, in the sense that it lets you see what's inside, but what you will see is not necessarily yours, and not necessarily free to use, or to resell or whatever.

But anyway, why so many replies are going rude? 
Looks no different than banding with pitchfork while screaming "a witch!  burn the witch!"

It's OK to say "this idea is wrong because of this and that", but it is not OK to say "_YOU_ are wrong because this and that".  First form is a technical discussion, second form is a personal attack. 

The main rule on this forum is to be nice with the other nerds.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/forum-rules-please-read/
It's the very first rule, it says 1) Play nice with the other nerds


For those like me, who had to search online WTF is the displacement current  , found this MIT lecture note, which was an interesting read for me, so I'll let the link here, just for the docs:

Displacement current. Maxwell’s equations.
https://web.mit.edu/sahughes/www/8.022/lec19.pdf


This MIT pdf lecture, together with the other pdf (the Tesla's patent) were very interesting/rewarding reads for me.  Just to make clear, these pdf files are mainstream science, nothing controversial.

My point is, any topic can lead to interesting new reads, even when the main idea seems impossible.  But anyways, if you disagree, then try to dismantle the idea, not the author.  Or, if you don't have the time to disprove something, just say you think it won't work because it contradicts whatever.

I honestly have no idea why I got attacked the way I did, but I'm far from surprised. I came here to share my years of independent research. Didn't ask for anything and was never going to. I was completely transparent about the boundaries I set. The title is "(OPEN SOURCE) My Dielectric Displacement Energy Framework", keyword being FRAMEWORK. I never said schematics, PCB designs, or anything else like it. When you file for patents, they don't give you exact schematics and design implementations. You have to be knowledgeable enough to design it yourself. These people clearly aren't. I open-sourced the SCIENCE, not the exact implementations and I'm honestly glad I didn't because I genuinely thought about it for a moment when making the initial post but wanted to gauge people's reactions. I clearly made the right call. Wouldn't dare give anything like what I've built to people like this. Would've provided everything they asked for and they still would've found a reason to mock, ridicule, and criticize then get upset when I don't bend and give back the same exact energy. You and sourcecharge are literally the only ones with actual input and I appreciate that. I've removed the post and am never using this degenerate cesspool of a site again and will actively defer people tf away from it if it ever gets mentioned. Full of closed-minded people who trust their "instincts" enough to dismiss everything that challenges their understanding of how energy works. I'll continue as I have. Take it easy you two.

[Xena E]

. I've removed the post and am never using this degenerate cesspool of a site again and will actively defer people tf away from it if it ever gets mentioned. Full of closed-minded people who trust their "instincts" enough to dismiss everything that challenges their understanding of how energy works. I'll continue as I have.

No more posts Promise? Thanks! Take your superior knowledge, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[paul cotter]

That was shortlived, unlike some of Chet's ideas which seem immune to criticism.

[NE666]

I honestly have no idea why I got attacked the way I did

Then show this thread to your therapist / psychiatrist and ask them. If you *really* are that oblivious to how YOUR behaviour provokes these kinds of reactions in others, even when it has been explained to you, then they're the ones to help you. Not us.

We're not paid to stroke your ego or feed your delusions.

[RoGeorge]

I was looking at the Tesla patent about the bifilar coil, pretty creative arrangement of the coil turns.  Overall, it lowers the self-resonant frequency of the coil (when compared with a simple/monofilar spiral coil), which is pretty cool! 
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0b/3c/ab/eb51aebe935f8c/US512340.pdf

No George, it's not cool, it's a very good way to make a poor inductor into a very crappy inductor, what use is it outside the addled minds of Tesla loving, pigeon molesting, deluded morons? Why would you want to reduce the SRF like that? You would spend the rest of your life trying to hit the resonance that you were aiming for.

And what a way to tank the Q of your tank!

Oh, so you are a Tesla hater, too?  I've heard that recently, that it is trendy to bitch about Tesla.  I've noticed the trend started about the same time when the anti-Musk campaign started, which has a Tesla factory, so if dude Tesla was shit, Tesla brand will be associated with shit, too, and since Musk name is tied with Tesla cars, Musk will be seen as shit, too. 


OK, whatever.  But you are insinuating that I'm a "deluded moron" because I like the elegance of his patents.  Not nice.  Bad Xena, bad!  Don't try to bully, or to ridicule others, because by doing that you are only diminishing yourself.  I've noticed you turned personal attacks into a habit, in the dodgy tech section.  You and the other 2-3 friends of yours made yourself a small bullying-gang.  You prop each other by thanking to each other to the most unspectacular replies, as long as those replies are aligned with your little bulling gang.  You guys are making a disservice to this forum, because you deter others to discuss openly.

So, bad Xena, bad!  Same to other 3-4 guys that jump on any shoddy tech topic to coerce others instead of pointing the mistakes.  Then if your coercion fail, you start personal attacks, making laugh of new users, talking rude, and then inviting them to never come back again.

Kind reminder again, we are here to talk about tech, not about people.  Tech is nice, people, well... some are not nice, so let's keep it about tech.


Now about your tech questions.  I guess hating the dude Tesla stopped you from reading the patent, because the patent title + the first paragraph answers your questions:

- what use is it outside the addled minds of Tesla loving, pigeon molesting, deluded morons?

The answer is in the patent title "COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS", a patent from 1894 https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0b/3c/ab/eb51aebe935f8c/US512340.pdf
- The problem was to push big AC currents through a coil with many, many turns (e.g. for an electromagnetic crane)
- Typical solution back then (cca. 135 years ago) says the patent, was to add a capacitor to the coil, so the capacitor reactance will cancel the coil reactance (at least partially) and thus the power source will see the resonant LC as a small resistive load.
- The resonant LC tank was more convenient than the L alone, because It was easier to put a lot of AC active energy into a small resistive load, than it would be to put the same active energy in an L with with a lot of reactance.
- An additional capacitor was expensive, so the idea was, why not using the parasitic C in the turns of the coil? (we are still talking about a normal spiral coil, not the bifilar coil arrangement proposed in the patent).  The parasitic capacitance of the coil was too small to form a resonant LC for whatever frequency they use to power the electromagnet back then.

- And here comes the clever/elegant solution proposed in the patent:  Instead of using a coil in the shape of a normal spiral, like in fig. A in the patent, let's make a spiral coil by using only half of the wire.  With the other half of the wire, we made a second spiral, interleaved with the first spiral.  And we connect them like in fig B.

That way, the average voltage seen by the parasitic capacitance between 2 consecutive turns is half the voltage in fig B, which is much bigger than the voltage seen by the parasitic capacitor in the normal spiral in fig A (on average, total voltage divided by the number of turns).

The energy stored in a capacitor, is proportional with the square of the voltage.  So now, because the voltage is much higher, the parasitic capacitance will store much more energy than the (about the same) parasitic capacitance of a normal spiral.


I find that interleaved arrangement very clever.  It "enlarges" C, more precisely the energy stored in the form of the electric field, by simply rearranging the turns.  It is like we would now have an LC tank, but in which the C is somehow seeing an "amplified/larger" voltage.  This last paragraph is my own interpretation, not in the patent.

Don't know how to say it, but to me, that patent is certainly a very clever and very elegant by its simplicity.  By contrast with your reaction, I don't have any emotional response when thinking about N. Tesla.  But if you hate Tesla that much, whatever, imagine the patent's author was Edison, or Westinghouse. 

[Phil1977]

There is a large spectrum between hating Tesla and not hyping him.

For sure he was a spark(l)ing person of his time. He had many clever ideas, but he also was one of the first tech-scammers selling stuff that can not work.

Just remember his "wireless energy transmission" towers. It´s just not practical to use RF that way.

Or his "tesla turbine". It´s often claimed it has 100% efficiency because completely laminar - but in reality reaction turbines like in hydroelectric plants really have nearly 100% efficiency while a tesla turbine always is friction based and rarely exceeded 30% efficiency in experiments.

If conspiracists then start to imagine what Tesla invented but "wasn't allowed to publish" it really gets even more ludicrous.

[Electrodynamic]

RoGeorge

I was looking at the Tesla patent about the bifilar coil, pretty creative arrangement of the coil turns.  Overall, it lowers the self-resonant frequency of the coil (when compared with a simple/monofilar spiral coil), which is pretty cool! 
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0b/3c/ab/eb51aebe935f8c/US512340.pdf

Though, from the patent text, it looks like that idea was not new at the time, because Tesla mentions in the patent's text how coils with multifilar isolated wires in series were already known.

I did quite a bit of R&D on Tesla's bifilar coil patent.

I found there was a lot to learn from the bifilar coil patent. Around the same time Tesla was working on high frequency devices like the hair pin circuit which is a modified Lecher line circuit. A Lecher line is a device used to measure the wavelength of electrical waves shown in fig 1 below. Tesla's claimed his HV/HF devices could produce wavelengths as small as one inch which translates to 11.8 GHz. here is a good resource, https://waveguide.blog/brief-history-tesla-hairpin-circuit-stout-copper-bars/

Suppose we have a two foot length of conductor and the wavelength of the input signal is two feet long. The first foot of the conductor will have a (-) surface charge and the second foot a (+) surface charge like this (-)- - - - - - + + + + + + (+)  shown in fig 2. When we bend the two foot conductor in half the maximum (-) and (+) surface charges are now parallel to one another and in close proximity just like any other capacitor similar to fig 3. What many people didn't realize is that maximum capacity only occurs when the frequency/wavelength perfectly matches the conductor length which seems obvious when we look at how a Lecher line works. We connect a light bulb across the stout copper bars and the light shines brightest as the peaks of the wavelength where the maximum surface charge occurs. 

It seems Tesla simply applied this same textbook rule to his bifilar coils which in reality were very large as shown below. So it's easy to see why most people got poor results winding small solenoid coils with overlapping turns operated at low voltage and frequency. It's not rocket science, build the god damn coil the way the patent shows and match the frequency/wavelength to the conductor length.

[paul cotter]

The capacitance developed between two parallel conductors is purely a function of their geometry.
The downside of these bifilar coils has already been pointed out: the insulating material of the wire will have a greater loss tangent than that which can be achieved with a proper capacitor(polypropylene, mica, teflon etc,etc) and the Q factor will suffer.

[paul cotter]

RoGeorge, anyone who claims more out than in, ie overunity, is guaranteed immediate derision unless they supply concrete details of their device, as all such schemes are utterly impossible. If a schematic is shown we will patiently explain the inherent error but when only vague ill-defined concepts are promulgated then a bad reaction will follow. How would you react if I told you I had a process to turn lead into gold but the details are proprietary?

[Xena E]

I was looking at the Tesla patent about the bifilar coil, pretty creative arrangement of the coil turns.  Overall, it lowers the self-resonant frequency of the coil (when compared with a simple/monofilar spiral coil), which is pretty cool! 
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0b/3c/ab/eb51aebe935f8c/US512340.pdf

No George, it's not cool, it's a very good way to make a poor inductor into a very crappy inductor, what use is it outside the addled minds of Tesla loving, pigeon molesting, deluded morons? Why would you want to reduce the SRF like that? You would spend the rest of your life trying to hit the resonance that you were aiming for.

And what a way to tank the Q of your tank!

Oh, so you are a Tesla hater, too?  I've heard that recently, that it is trendy to bitch about Tesla.  I've noticed the trend started about the same time when the anti-Musk campaign started, which has a Tesla factory, so if dude Tesla was shit, Tesla brand will be associated with shit, too, and since Musk name is tied with Tesla cars, Musk will be seen as shit, too. 


OK, whatever.  But you are insinuating that I'm a "deluded moron" because I like the elegance of his patents.  Not nice.  Bad Xena, bad!  Don't try to bully, or to ridicule others, because by doing that you are only diminishing yourself.  I've noticed you turned personal attacks into a habit, in the dodgy tech section.  You and the other 2-3 friends of yours made yourself a small bullying-gang.  You prop each other by thanking to each other to the most unspectacular replies, as long as those replies are aligned with your little bulling gang.  You guys are making a disservice to this forum, because you deter others to discuss openly.

So, bad Xena, bad!  Same to other 3-4 guys that jump on any shoddy tech topic to coerce others instead of pointing the mistakes.  Then if your coercion fail, you start personal attacks, making laugh of new users, talking rude, and then inviting them to never come back again.

Kind reminder again, we are here to talk about tech, not about people.  Tech is nice, people, well... some are not nice, so let's keep it about tech.


Now about your tech questions.  I guess hating the dude Tesla stopped you from reading the patent, because the patent title + the first paragraph answers your questions:

- what use is it outside the addled minds of Tesla loving, pigeon molesting, deluded morons?

The answer is in the patent title "COIL FOR ELECTROMAGNETS", a patent from 1894 https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0b/3c/ab/eb51aebe935f8c/US512340.pdf
- The problem was to push big AC currents through a coil with many, many turns (e.g. for an electromagnetic crane)
- Typical solution back then (cca. 135 years ago) says the patent, was to add a capacitor to the coil, so the capacitor reactance will cancel the coil reactance (at least partially) and thus the power source will see the resonant LC as a small resistive load.
- The resonant LC tank was more convenient than the L alone, because It was easier to put a lot of AC active energy into a small resistive load, than it would be to put the same active energy in an L with with a lot of reactance.
- An additional capacitor was expensive, so the idea was, why not using the parasitic C in the turns of the coil? (we are still talking about a normal spiral coil, not the bifilar coil arrangement proposed in the patent).  The parasitic capacitance of the coil was too small to form a resonant LC for whatever frequency they use to power the electromagnet back then.

- And here comes the clever/elegant solution proposed in the patent:  Instead of using a coil in the shape of a normal spiral, like in fig. A in the patent, let's make a spiral coil by using only half of the wire.  With the other half of the wire, we made a second spiral, interleaved with the first spiral.  And we connect them like in fig B.

That way, the average voltage seen by the parasitic capacitance between 2 consecutive turns is half the voltage in fig B, which is much bigger than the voltage seen by the parasitic capacitor in the normal spiral in fig A (on average, total voltage divided by the number of turns).

The energy stored in a capacitor, is proportional with the square of the voltage.  So now, because the voltage is much higher, the parasitic capacitance will store much more energy than the (about the same) parasitic capacitance of a normal spiral.


I find that interleaved arrangement very clever.  It "enlarges" C, more precisely the energy stored in the form of the electric field, by simply rearranging the turns.  It is like we would now have an LC tank, but in which the C is somehow seeing an "amplified/larger" voltage.  This last paragraph is my own interpretation, not in the patent.

Don't know how to say it, but to me, that patent is certainly a very clever and very elegant by its simplicity.  By contrast with your reaction, I don't have any emotional response when thinking about N. Tesla.  But if you hate Tesla that much, whatever, imagine the patent's author was Edison, or Westinghouse. 

Yes I've seen that infernal patent too many times, usually hanging on some morons claim for free overunity energy...

Why is that coil such a great idea? What does it achieve? It makes a coil of wire with magnified distributed capacitance! It may have been theoretically a good idea for AC electromagnets when capacitors were an expensive and difficult to produce product, but even then the disadvantages with insulation and dielectrics were analogous.

AC electromagnet? Stored energy? Shading pole!

Actual real engineering has striven toward trying to achieve ideal component performance not to make it worse!

If you have the problem that the Tesla bifilar coil solution solves George, then good for you! If you actually read that patent you will actually see that like so many of them it's just a pitch for whoever is reading them. He used to mention the importance of family life and religion in his patents, that is something that is perpetuated to this day with the free energy crowd to impress their 'marks'.

Tesla operated after his early successes as a patent factory trying to patent any idea and get people to pay him for them. He was a very clever man in that respect. The patent includes the words that the coil is capable of storing energy  two hundred and fifty thousand times as great. Whoopee doo! That's what every overunity idiot wants to read, those calculations just based on the magnified effect of distributed capacitance.

Just where in the world of electronic and electrical engineering has this super cool, elegant solution ever been used, has anyone ever had to pay royalties to Tesla for it?

How that man ever ended up as a poster boy for electrical engineering is a mystery, apart from his early work with two phase generation of AC, which wasn't even adopted for the eventual distribution of electricity in the United States he did nothing of worth.

It's all legend, if you want to believe that legend the please yourself. But it is disingenuous to promote and perpetuate it.

As for this extract:

Oh, so you are a Tesla hater, too?  I've heard that recently, that it is trendy to bitch about Tesla.  I've noticed the trend started about the same time when the anti-Musk campaign started, which has a Tesla factory, so if dude Tesla was shit, Tesla brand will be associated with shit, too, and since Musk name is tied with Tesla cars, Musk will be seen as shit, too. 

DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO PEOPLES MOUTHS.
I nor anyone else has said that in this thread, the name Tesla used as a brand was a marketing decision from people unconnected with the man himself  and I'm not about to draw comparison just because of that. That is just a corporate decision I wouldn't make but has worked well for them.

As for:

But if you hate Tesla that much, whatever, imagine the patent's author was Edison, or Westinghouse.

So what? Edison owned a company that made products and he was successful (until J.P Morgan (?) sacked him from it and rebranded it General Electric) the man himself was a monster who was prepared to perpetrate animal cruelty to demonstrate his claimed danger of AC electricity.

The story of Edison and Tesla being arch business enemies was untrue and apart from the disagreement over the AC DC debate otherwise had great respect for each other.

And just to be clear, it's not a hatred of Tesla the man, in later life he became mentally unstable and perpetrated a lot of what was basically either, costly to his financial backers, deluded research, or, just blatant fraud.

The man himself always presented as a fair individual in his writings even when making patents always crediting the prior art of others, my problem is the promoting of him as a figurehead of electrical inovation and some kind of intellectual superman... it is this legend where the hatred comes from.

As you yourself said George... Whatever! Hang on to your heroes I'll hang on to mine. Have a nice evening  and best regards.

[PlainName]

If a schematic is shown we will patiently explain the inherent error but when only vague ill-defined concepts are promulgated then a bad reaction will follow. How would you react if I told you I had a process to turn lead into gold but the details are proprietary?

Move off and find something more interesting to discuss. RoG's ideas can be a bit.. er.. offbeat but he is correct in that threads like this degenerate into ad hom attacks. There is really no good excuse or useful side effect from telling someone to fuck off. If you can't handle them, you should leave and let them wibble into a vacuum.

[paul cotter]

I am quite willing to discuss any technical idea and help a poster to a better understanding, if I can, but they must put all their cards on the table to do this. Vague mumbo-jumbo will be called out for what it is and it is often the subsequent reaction of the OP that triggers the mud slinging.

[temperance]

I've removed the post and am never using this degenerate cesspool of a site again and will actively defer people tf away from it if it ever gets mentioned.

Hopefully, it will be highly contagious among the people you associate with.

[PlainName]

I am quite willing to discuss any technical idea and help a poster to a better understanding, if I can, but they must put all their cards on the table to do this. Vague mumbo-jumbo will be called out for what it is and it is often the subsequent reaction of the OP that triggers the mud slinging.

Sure, I know that you are helpful and would point out what's missing that would let you help. Just that some pipe up only to be nasty because it makes them feel good. And, of course, the manner of being told one is in cloud cuckoo land may well not lead to a joyous frame of mind, affecting any response.

[Electrodynamic]

The capacitance developed between two parallel conductors is purely a function of their geometry.
The downside of these bifilar coils has already been pointed out: the insulating material of the wire will have a greater loss tangent than that which can be achieved with a proper capacitor(polypropylene, mica, teflon etc,etc) and the Q factor will suffer.

I would agree, the capacitance depends on the surface area, separation distance and insulating material. It doesn't depend on the voltage applied but must be considered when operating at millions of volts like Tesla. The problem is many are trying to apply LV thinking to a HV problem imo. When we start working with hundreds of thousands of volts and higher everything gets a little tricky and expensive. I thought the idea of integrating a capacitance into a HV coil was interesting. I had a real bitch of a time building capacitors able to withstand 500kV and corona/break over was always an issue as well as the insulation breaking down basically everywhere.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed but Tesla's supposed "coil for electromagnets" is a really poor electromagnet and was never used as one to my knowledge. In Tesla's other patents this coil was being used as a HV secondary. Other patents suggest Tesla was looking for a way to produce close coupling with the primary and using distributed capacitance to store more energy per cycle.

[TimFox]

Many dielectric materials (such as X7R ceramic) are very non-linear, and the resulting capacitance is a function of voltage.

[paul cotter]

Some of the hi-k ceramics also heat up significantly with applied RF and can undergo large variations in capacitance as a result.(I cannot remember offhand if X7R falls into this category)

[TimFox]

The really-high-k ceramics have high dissipation factors (low Q).
X7R has mediocre Q, roughly similar to PET (Mylar) film, while C0G has high Q, comparable to polypropylene.
When AC or RF current flows through a capacitor, the loss due to the dissipation factor will heat the unit.

[RoGeorge]

I think I might have found out what mislead the OP into saying he observed 85W DC out, and only 5W DC in.

In the github repository there were many pictures, with a few versions of the device.  Most pics were with the output of the device not loaded.  I certainly don't remember any incandescent light bulb in any of those pics.


The only load I've seen in the pics was one of those high power wirewound resistors made out of a constantan wire wound around a ceramic cylinder, about the size of a cigar.  This resistor was heaving 2 metal bands at its ends, to connect wires, and a 3rd adjustable metal tab, like a potentiometer, except that the middle cursor was held on the resistor's body with a screw.

The power resistor was used as a load at the DC output of the device, and it was connected between one of its ends and the middle cursor.  Something like this:




What I guess it happened:
- the cursor was adjusted while R was outside of the circuit, say at 100 ohms, by measuring R with a DMM
- then this R was connected as load in the testing circuit
- then the voltage on the resistor was measured, 90Vdc, and thus the calculated power (not measured, calculated) was U²/R = 81W
- those ceramic power resistors are unreliable, (I had one long ago, and I remember the middle contact was a pain, it doesn't always make contact with the rest of the resistor wire)

My guess is, the middle contact on the power resistor was not making contact.  That would explain why the measured zero current, because the resistor was in fact interrupted.  So the device was outputting 90V but with no load, 5W in and 0W out, not the calculated 81W out.

[Xena E]

That's credible George, but, in your opinion, such an elementary error in an experiment like that gives the TS the right to come here and insult people and expect respect for it why?

Without prejudice
I may be wrong and he's just a deluded simpleton who has never learned the scientific method as is common of these idiots, but I think not... it was (IMO) just a grift, and when he realised he was getting pushback, and it wasn't going to go anywhere for him, he deleted the body of his post to cover his tracks and fucked off... it's a shame no one quoted the whole thing as a marker bouy to prevent further misunderstandings in the thread if they stumble in here and read it.

I may be an ignorant arsehole, but I'm not a gullible ignorant arsehole, even if others are.

Best regards., etc., etc,.
X

[RoGeorge]

Xena, I like you (as a user of this forum), but I think it was the other way around when you say he started to insult people.

The OP didn't insult anybody.  Others (in fact most), started to attack him, instead of attacking the proposed theory, or the device(s) he built.

The text in the OP's first post was indeed written in a self-aggrandizing manner, and that automatically put everybody into the "judgemental mode" mindset.  And the replies following the first post were accordingly:  judgemental against the OP, instead of being explanatory about the proposed device.

What I kindly ask from you, and from everybody else here, is to never resort to personal attacks in order to end a technical disagreement.  Dave wrote in the forum rules that this is the biggest rule on this forum, "no personal attacks".  It is listed as rule 2) on this forum.  So the spirit is "be nice with others, and most of all no personal attacks":  EEVblog rules by Dave.

Even when you know you are right, and the other one is wrong, yet that other one refuses your correct explanation.  Some may refuse because they are stubborn, some may have not payed attention to your explanation, some may not know enough to understand what you were explaining to them, or maybe they are just trolling for attention, doesn't matter, but a personal attack won't change their mind.

And yes, I know some OP's are writing at the border of making other people angry, and yes, just as many others here, I suspect that this topic was probably started by the same user known former as Chet (and other former nicknames), and yes, I know your reaction (and other people's reaction) was natural, just that I don't want us all to have "group-bashing" here, on EEVblog.


I might be wrong in my reasoning, but I don't have the time to disentangle who offended whom first (and honestly, not willing to do that, even if I were to have the time), but since you wrote you wish to still have around a quote from the opening post of this topic, I am attaching a html capture.  Once unziped, it should be visible in the web browser as a scroll-able webpage.  Some browsers may not understand the single-file .html format, but LibreWolf or Brave browsers should have no problem rendering the html snapshot of that webpage.  The .html snapshot was taken a couple of days ago using the "SingleFile" add-on for Firefox.


In case you (or anybody else) is wondering why the hell would anybody take a snapshot of that?! 

That's because I didn't know before about the Tesla's bifilar coil.  Never studied Tesla's patents in particular, not a fanboy nor a hater of Tesla.  But I did like that idea, because it made me think it would be fun to rewrite the LC resonant frequency formula in terms of energy stored in the magnetic field and energy stored in the electric field. 

I'm not even sure if a bifilar winding really lowers the self resonant frequency, as I guesstimate while reading that patent.  So, I've created a new directory with a new project for myself, where I saved the Tesla's patent, a text description of what I want to look for, but also a snapshot of the EEVblog page from where that idea of rewriting the LC formula originated.

I've also secretly hoped that, while researching the resonant F formula written in terms of energy swinging between its H and E form instead of written in terms of L and C, I will also discover anti-gravity as a side-effect  , or maybe even more, discover the anti-grave-ity! 

(but I will never admit to have such hidden hopes, don't you even think of asking "so, how has it been so far?"  )

[coromonadalix]

report to MODS if some derail  .............

[Xena E]

Sorry George, but I just seemed to hurt your feelings with my comment about that patent, and that I pointed out why it was ridiculous. The only ad hom attack I made was on the charlatan fraud Tesla, and his continuing legions of adoring followers, and that you shouldn't waste your time on his slop patents.

Here is the link to my post:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/my-dielectric-displacement-energy-framework-is-now-open-source/msg6302024/#msg6302024

(For the record if you want to easily recognise the good inventions that Tesla came up with, or had covered with patents, just look for things that exist in the real world like his centrifugal pump etc. I can assure you, you will not discover anything that has been overlooked by others in the last century.

I didn't class you with being one of his followers George😉, and I normally find your posts informative and/or entertaining, but if you want to wear the hat and attack me personally for that, then that's OK, I really don't give the furry crack of a rats arse and you will largely waste your time doing so.

If you want to berate someone for telling the TS to fuck off (which I must say I agreed with wholeheartedly by the way) then that came from another poster. I was just glad to see he had his superior ass handed to him on a plate.

Everyone deserves respect that earns it... but coming into this forum with anything other than an expectation of not only criticism but also ridicule, is as deluded as some of the ideas. Dave I think keeps this area for the sole reason that he doesn't want the shit spread amongst the genuine threads elsewhere.

I have been accused of not contributing to these threads strangely enough by the Topic starter of one that I actually contributed to and defended because the claims were valid, (not however overunity), that was a slap in the face, and I've since put him on the ignore list because of that and his other Walter Mitty style stories.

Also... I don't think this thread was the work of Chet/Vinyasi, only the moderators could tell you that with any accuracy though, it seemed a different style of slop...

As always best regards.
X

[Xena E]

report to MODS if some derail  .............

Don't worry, last from me in this thread, it will go round and round if someone doesn't get their coat and leave.