Skip to content
Stan’s Legacy

wrtner

13 posts · 95 more in threads this archive does not carry · writing between Jun 2014 and May 2018

An identity on Energy Science Forum as it was harvested, not an account on this site. Nobody here has claimed it, and nothing connects it to a person by name.

Tesla`s anti - gravity

#16 ·

Richard wrote:

I am mystified by Forrest's comment that he was using AC in his Townsend Brown experiments.
In #9, he speaks of work on AC and of work on TT Brown, but not at the same time.

Overunity devices.

#14 ·

Popscan wrote:

Click Halbach / Hamel motor on the You Tube to see a overunity motor and how to construct it. Free
Interesting, but what is the address?

BrandNewWorld wrote:

Hi Folks,

I was stumbling by accident of this thread, and was wondering if this is not warmup of a invention from a New Zealand Feller, who was struggling his whole life to get a patent for his invention but it was never granted to him.
Peter Daysh Davey was awarded a New Zealand patent, back in the 60s, I think. The basis of his invention is the tuning of the bells to the fr3quency (usually an octave of it) of the mains AC voltage. There are all sorts of reasons why this might work.

image_placeholder.svg



The Dumas idea seems to be Davey without the tuning.

Bung-ee wrote:

Anyway, I am trusting the whole demonstration as to have been made by true thermodynamics physicists...
This is not about thermo. It is very basic schoolboy physics. It is easy -very easy. We need to know the volume of water, starting temp, finishing temp, voltage and current and time.

What should not be done is to reckon that the voltage is the regular 220v when, in actuality, on the day, it might have been 240v. The COP of 1.17 would be made a mockery by such an error. I will try and find my Davey spreadsheet and post it.

Bung-ee wrote:

Is there a difference between how to produce an effect you don't necessarily understand...
No, but in post 36, you say he didn't understand the effect - as if this was an issue. You are right; it doesn't matter.

Th reason I would like to see more work done on the Dumas is because, if it works with a COP out of the range of experimental error, then what will happen if the Dumas is tuned as the Davey is tuned? The COP may sky rocket. This exercise will be tricky because the sphere is likely to have a resonant frequency considerably different to the hemisphere - but it might be possible to get dramatic improvements in COP.

Bung-ee wrote:

First, you do know that Mr Davey never let it open to the public as how his invention worked.
I don't think he ever pretended that he knew.

He was a fighter pilot in the war and noticed that if he dived his Hurricane and could create certain rattles and frequencies, a strange warmth filled the cockpit which was not explainable. After the war, he tried numerous experiments to replicate the effect and ended up with the realisation that a device based on two bicycle bells worked. Then he realised that bicycle bells rang at near G sharp four octaves above that of his native mains frequency. (How on earth the Hurry heated up was never explained and I don't think his discovery was either. I reckon cavitation is in there somewhere and I think I have noticed cavitation mentioned in connection with Dumas also). People have quoted a COP of 8. The problem is that most are scared rigid by the idea of plunging mains voltage into water and do not believe it could ever be a commercial product. (TEPCO might take it on - they like sticking their heads into a tiger's mouth).

i think the Dumas device is well worth trying but a COP of 1.17 is inside experimental error.

Kiril_Kirilov wrote:

This "Duma's Effect" is long ago dicovered by 92 years old sax player Peter Davey, and is published in rexresearch since 2008:







So, effect deserves to be after Peter Davey's name.
Peter Daysh Davey's system is different. The hemispheres (bells) must be tuned accurately to an octave of the mains frequency being used.

This idea is interesting; it is like Davey without the tuning, and as such, I doubt it works. But it is worth a try. The problem is that the COP is so marginal that it is well within experimental error, and makes the whole thing a bit pointless. (Who gets out of bed for a COP of 1.17?). It may be that the system can be refined and improved.

You forgot to mention Patrick's book:
image_placeholder.svg