Now, was that on your root canal or on someone else's at the time?
I have terrible teeth - 7 crowns last time I counted and about 9 RC's.
The two best dentists I ever had: A Dr. Borthwick (Scottish fellow) back in SA, and more recently a Dr. Chen in Taipei. I've had two or three that were absolutely terrible.
Shouldn't be hard to scale it up to where you can charge something small.
Now if your issue is with the claimed method, have you tried it yourself? (
Something small? Ed have you ever measured the charging current on a Kindle or smart phone? I have a nice docking station that differentiates between 1A and 2.4A out sockets. The claim is continuous charging of any USB charged device.
Built a MEG (motionless electromagnetic generator)? No, no one else has been able to duplicate their bogus results either.
I did buy one of those flashlights where you jerk a super-rmagnet back and forth through a coil, it stopped working when the cheesy battery died. You could wank for 10 min to get a min or so of light out of a single white LED. It was a bigish magnet and lots of turns of fine wire, shaking as hard as you could didn't give much out, but you could have calculated that, right?
You continue it seems to not want to have a discussion based on actual claims.
Last edited:
You forgot one off your list:-
4. The Myrtle block force
This will lie somewhere between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force, since it can operate cables conducting charge that pass over it.
Hubble and van Maanen
Actually that New Yorker article is quite interesting, although it hardly sanctions a complete jettisoning of the scientific method.
I recalled the controversy over the nominal distances to the then-dubbed Galactic Nebulae. Edwin Hubble triumphed after noting Cepheid variables in what turned out to be in other galaxies, and from whose brightnesses he could infer then-unimaginable distances, but van Maanen never quite gave up on his purported measurements of proper motions of what he took to be stars in similar "nebulae". For a long time his plate measuring equipment sat in the basement at Santa Barbara Street with a sign warning people not to disturb it.
Of course this situation was much easier to diagnose as operator bias than some of the dilemmas recounted in the New Yorker article.
Actually that New Yorker article is quite interesting, although it hardly sanctions a complete jettisoning of the scientific method.
I recalled the controversy over the nominal distances to the then-dubbed Galactic Nebulae. Edwin Hubble triumphed after noting Cepheid variables in what turned out to be in other galaxies, and from whose brightnesses he could infer then-unimaginable distances, but van Maanen never quite gave up on his purported measurements of proper motions of what he took to be stars in similar "nebulae". For a long time his plate measuring equipment sat in the basement at Santa Barbara Street with a sign warning people not to disturb it.
Of course this situation was much easier to diagnose as operator bias than some of the dilemmas recounted in the New Yorker article.
No he's not.
Real barroom brawlers actually stick around to fight, not run and hide when confronted.
se
Where is this coming from? It all started with a lame, uncalled for joke, and now this. John has a great track record in audio design, some respect would hurt nobody.
Ed's comment was unfortunate and we should drop this line of discussion, it goes nowhere good. Schools of amplifier design are not gangs who settle things by taking them outside.
I'm not exactly sure. Think a few people ended up fairly disgruntled after their pet theories were ignored/shot down/? in the latest divining/quantum-this-or-that bit.
Back to JFET front ends with opamps: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/equi...erential-take-groners-ln-measurement-amp.html
Scott's suggestion is quite nice (if you need the gain, which, if you're going for super low noise/high impedance front-ends, that seems a given).
Back to JFET front ends with opamps: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/equi...erential-take-groners-ln-measurement-amp.html
Scott's suggestion is quite nice (if you need the gain, which, if you're going for super low noise/high impedance front-ends, that seems a given).
Just curious.
Thermal imaging of Headphone amplifier. Link.
The heatsink looks sufficiently adequate. They almost remains constant temperature throughout (Yellow color). My question is lets say if we increase heatsink area five fold. What will happen ? Will the larger heatsink reach at saturation point and still remain constant temperature or cool down ?
Thanks and regards.
Thermal imaging of Headphone amplifier. Link.
The heatsink looks sufficiently adequate. They almost remains constant temperature throughout (Yellow color). My question is lets say if we increase heatsink area five fold. What will happen ? Will the larger heatsink reach at saturation point and still remain constant temperature or cool down ?
Thanks and regards.
That'll be bad science then..............
Yes it comes out of Faraday' law that higher flux will give a greater voltage for a given coil. Ohm's law shows this results in a greater current for a fixed resistance.
If you try adding turns to the same flux you will get more voltage and for a given wire gauge more resistance. So in practical implementations you have some optimum coil that yields maximum power for a given changing flux. So the bigger magnet when suspended will move less compared to the vibrating coil and allow a larger flux to in effect drop the source impedance.
There really is a reason why as loudspeaker power handling goes up for a given efficiency the magnet strength and size increase. (Using the same magnet material.)
But you just wanted to only look at Faraday's law and ignore the practical aspects.
Scott
The miracle product under discussion is as I read the patent simply a step up transformer with the core being a magnet. So instead of the flux swinging around zero it goes from zero to double. If you misapply the limits of the integral or just use the wrong simplified formula you get a voltage (or current) term squared and the improper conclusion that you get more energy out than in. The patent also mentions that amazingly enought that more turns on the secondary increases the voltage out. They don't seem to understand the current drops. So I think the inventor is delusional not fraudulent.
Now with some work you could build this transformer with a mechanical resonance at a useful frequency of 50 or 60 hertz and setting it to self oscillate it may actually add some energy harvesting.
Note the demo was in a pub where ther would me much more of a baseline vibration. Also the cell phones being charged were most likely already partially charged.
So I think delusional is more apt.
Which of course brings up a story. There was a music director at a local radio station that liked to do practical jokes that really were just a bit of bullying.
Now one of my golden oldie circuits uses a 4060 CMOS chip with a NAND gate to form a timer that will pulse for a few seconds about every 25 hours. One of these triggered a capacitor to discharge into some nichrome wire that was wrapped around a cheap cigar. The unit was placed in a metal electrical junction box. A bit of metal screen also was in the air path just to be sure no sparks could escape. This was placed in his office so it looked like it belonged. A second circuit was hooked up to a motorized pot in his music auditioning system so every so often the volume control would rotate itself to the minimum volume position. I ask a coworker of his to mention late night they saw someone smoking a cigar in his office, but when they opened the door to tell them it was a private office and smoking was not allowed the person they thought they saw vanished.
Suffice it to say he no longer does his version of practical jokes much anymore.
The miracle product under discussion is as I read the patent simply a step up transformer with the core being a magnet. So instead of the flux swinging around zero it goes from zero to double. If you misapply the limits of the integral or just use the wrong simplified formula you get a voltage (or current) term squared and the improper conclusion that you get more energy out than in. The patent also mentions that amazingly enought that more turns on the secondary increases the voltage out. They don't seem to understand the current drops. So I think the inventor is delusional not fraudulent.
Now with some work you could build this transformer with a mechanical resonance at a useful frequency of 50 or 60 hertz and setting it to self oscillate it may actually add some energy harvesting.
Note the demo was in a pub where ther would me much more of a baseline vibration. Also the cell phones being charged were most likely already partially charged.
So I think delusional is more apt.
Which of course brings up a story. There was a music director at a local radio station that liked to do practical jokes that really were just a bit of bullying.
Now one of my golden oldie circuits uses a 4060 CMOS chip with a NAND gate to form a timer that will pulse for a few seconds about every 25 hours. One of these triggered a capacitor to discharge into some nichrome wire that was wrapped around a cheap cigar. The unit was placed in a metal electrical junction box. A bit of metal screen also was in the air path just to be sure no sparks could escape. This was placed in his office so it looked like it belonged. A second circuit was hooked up to a motorized pot in his music auditioning system so every so often the volume control would rotate itself to the minimum volume position. I ask a coworker of his to mention late night they saw someone smoking a cigar in his office, but when they opened the door to tell them it was a private office and smoking was not allowed the person they thought they saw vanished.
Suffice it to say he no longer does his version of practical jokes much anymore.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.