[NewCandle] Parasitic Cap Charging

[John Winterflood]

Hi Dr Stiffler,

I am sure I have given you the wrong impression.  I was not referring to 
your present activity on this list, or with the group of researchers 
that you work with - whom I assume (maybe incorrectly) to be largely 
hobbyists.  I imagined that you might by now have isolated and pinned 
down an anomaly and were inclined to approach a local university physics 
department to try to get some "one" with "credentials" to confirm it.  I 
thought I could offer some advice on how to approach these guys or write 
a report to present to them.  But now I realize that I don't really know 
what you meant when you wrote that, and really have no idea where you 
are at with your project(s).

The main reason I piped up was because you stated an extremely overunity 
result and I assumed you must have made a mistake.  But if it was a 
mistake you left it uncorrected :-
>> Dr Stiffler wrote:
>>> You really need to look at ESEG, just a simple test could prove 
>>> worth while. Really if only someone would put pencil to paper and 
>>> see what the field density is like 30cm from a 1W Exciter and 
>>> attempt to answer how it can charge 1kF to 140+ volts in under 60 
>>> sec. ... 
>> Just wondering if you really meant 1000 Farads of capacitance at 140 
>> volts!?  I'm sure you appreciate that by conventional calculation it 
>> should take of order 3 years to charge this from a 1 W exciter 
>> (regardless of distance and field density)?

The advice I tried to offer was from my own experience with academia 
since I seem to have one foot inside the academic camp and one foot 
outside.  I read the complaints outsiders raise about the academic 
community (such as your comment about someone with credentials seemed to 
be), and I am also party to the conversations that take place when 
regular academics have to referee an "extraordinary" paper of some sort, 
or chat about the crackpots that they have to deal with.  So the things 
I wrote were not aimed at you specifically but was a collection of 
thoughts built up through hearing these criticisms and thinking what I 
would do to preempt most of them.

The comment about "finishing" comes from an interview that I had with 
the then head of a physics department when I approached him about 
enrolling to study physics.  Interestingly the thing which I was most 
interested in investigating was a space drive just such as is being 
discussed here recently.  At the time I had an idea about how it might 
work but was naive and foolish enough to mention that UFOs must have 
some sort of space drive in order to fly silently the way they do - and 
I would like to investigate such things!  Well that sure triggered a 
response about crackpots and what they do which went something like 
this: "they come to you with some half-baked idea and expect you to drop 
everything and investigate it for them - actually not even quarter-baked 
but just an idea .... you're not a crackpot are you!?".  Of course that 
response stuck and I made up my mind that before I would bother a busy 
scientist about something, I would make sure that I had done everything 
I was able to do to understand and investigate the phenomenon myself.  I 
also learnt to keep my mouth shut about UFOs (amongst many other 
interesting things) in the presence of conventional scientists!

The comments about honesty and openness come from trying to define just 
what "science" is and picking up on Feynman's ideas.  It seems that 
almost everything that you can think of that comes under the name of 
science is simply applying common sense methods to find out the truth, 
and much the same methods are used in many fields and endeavors.  But 
reading Feynman (see his lecture on "cargo-cult science") brings out the 
interesting idea that "The first principle is that you must not fool 
yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" and there is "a 
principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter 
honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're 
doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might 
make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other 
causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought 
of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked 
-- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."

I really don't have time to wade through the 2.5 thousand postings on 
overunity.com to see where your projects are at, but I took a look at a 
recent you-tube video which showed a 3 farad capacitor charging to 11+ 
volts from a high frequency drive oscillator.  Is this your 1W exciter?  
and does it charge to 11.1 volts (185 joules) in less than the 
theoretical minimum of 185 seconds from your 1 W exciter?

When you were playing with LEDs I thought of suggesting that you should 
use spectrally matched emitters and detectors (which for silicon means 
using infra-red LEDs) to get good quantum efficiency.  Supposing you 
were to couple them together very well (emitter output directly facing 
detector input with maybe transparent electrostatic shielding between) 
and measure the input to output current transfer ratio with nominal 
rated DC.  Then you could compare this ratio with what you obtain when 
driving with your high frequency exciter.  If the ratio with the high 
frequency was significantly higher, then I think that this fact at least 
might be worth reporting in a scientific journal.

If the result you obtained suggested you might even be able to achieve 
overunity, then you could try to obtain the most efficient emitters (IR 
Laser diodes) and play all the tricks you can think of to try to ensure 
that all of their light is absorbed by the detector(s).  This might 
include making the main beam incident on the detector at Brewster's 
angle to minimize reflections, and enclosing them all in a highly 
reflective box to recycle any stray light.  Then do all the tricks you 
can think of to extract the power efficiently from the detectors ... and 
try to close the energy loop!

J.