Capacitor to store lightning?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MacGyver1968 said:
Even though you have zero experience with tanning bed design and testing...or any experience in high current AC devices...you are attempting to lecture me on what I should have done. Your suggestion of using a small gauge wire as some sort of fuse shows exactly how little you know on the subject. Please stop trying to teach...and try starting to learn.
Click to expand...

Both of JT's messages included outright insults and claims that he knew me personally. The text of both messages, and the text of Phil's recent messages, also indicated that he knew me and hated me. Neither of these people has tried very hard to discuss scientific subjects using the proper scientific terminology. Phil, for example, just couldn't move away from his "lightning in a box" concept, something that I've never once advocated.

I have been trying to learn. When someone like you, Billy, Bill Von, or Captain K were posting, I used the terminology and the technology that I had learned in my classes from 30 years ago. Any attempt to require me to "prove" the fact of my graduation is an attack on me personally as well as an attempt to change the nature of this board from scientific discussion to the snoopings of a bunch of amateur detectives. Mr. Franklin would never have put up with it, and I won't, either.

I have some knowledge of electricity, electronics, and water electrolysis. This came partly from my school and partly from the research I've done over the past five years in preparation for a patent application. I've been corresponding for a year and a half, enjoying the give-and take with people whose names, addresses, and titles I don't need to know and whose job descriptions are not what I'm looking for. I have no need for any personalized attacks, insults, or "guess who this is" games.

I have stopped corresponding with Phil, and I never answered JT because neither one of them was interested in the one thing that I'm interested in - discussing science.

Benny
 
Last edited:
BennyF said:
... Neither of these people has tried very hard to discuss scientific subjects using the proper scientific terminology. ...Benny
Click to expand...
Why should they? You ignore any and all scientific evidence that your dreaming / delusional even when presented as mathematical proof. And yes it is your own fault that you are too ignorant to even follow the math or the scientific arguments about lightning arcing to ground around the insulators your "attraction tower" MUST sit on instead of charging your capacitors.(An argument I compactly described a "throwing out the L-baby with the wash" while retaining your DC analysis's resister, you called R2.)

I have essentially given up on trying to educate you as you don't want to learn any scientific facts that show your dreaming about capturing and storing lightning's energy worth even 0.000,001 of the capital cost of your capacitors, attraction tower, etc.

I must admit you have at least ceased telling your circuits would step up millions of volts to billions of volts of stored energy which would allow large offices, if not whole cities, to permanently disconnect for the electric grid. I think you now understand volts are not energy and that earlier claim could only be made by a very ignorant fool. Sadly you continue to make equally ignorant claims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One more fact that you all should appreciate. When I first started posting, I wrote about storing "voltage". I don't do that anymore because I now know it can't be done. I have learned this from other people who posted here. Capacitors store electrical energy. Voltage is simply one measurable aspect of this energy. Neither Phil nor JT were willing to learn civility, which I think is a prerequisite for any serious scientific discussion on this board.
 
BennyF/David's Favorite tactic...

...is to tell people to 'discuss the stock' over on the Yahoo forums. He does this after other posters have blown whatever he just posted out of the water with actual facts. When confronted he will ignore what was just said and resort to 'discuss the stock'. It's his version of a toddler's tantrum.

As I posted earlier, you are dealing with a full blown loon posting from a public library because he can't afford an ISP or a laptop. He's going to continue to post on this board for the attention and will argue, even when he has been proven wrong, because he suffers from an inflated sense of ego.

He ignores facts, misunderstands concepts, and is incapable of analysis or discussion. BennyF/David just wants to lecture others on topics he has no real grasp of. A favorite move of his is to cut/paste articles he thinks support his case, when in actuality he misinterpreted the context.

Now he's telling Phil to 'discuss the science' when that is all Phil and every other poster has done. He'll refuse to provide credentials and attack those that have them...and he's going to get personal.

Oh, and get ready for some massive amounts of projection from him! You tell him he's ignorant, he'll just say the same back. One of his best moves on the Yahoo boards is to take posts others have directed at him and then copy/paste those posts at others. It's insane.

Good luck, fellas.
 
BennyF said:
Neither Phil nor JT were willing to learn civility, which I think is a prerequisite for any serious scientific discussion on this board.
Click to expand...

Who is Phil? There's nobody here using that name and it's a bit of an insult (and against forums rules) if you are referring to me. So much for Civility.

Anyway, you insult US by posting half baked, unscientific and unworkable ideas, and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in them. You have been corrected several times, questioned for your credentials, but you won't take the corrections, nor provide the proof of your alleged qualification. After I did so, you were so uncivil you accused me of lying, despite posting the evidence! Talk about uncivil.

So, I will ask you one more time, let's see this qualification you allegedly possess.
 
Last edited:
BennyF said:
Phil, for example, just couldn't move away from his "lightning in a box" concept, something that I've never once advocated.
Click to expand...

You have talked about capturing ALL the electrical energy of a lightning strike into your apparatus, which will have to be fully insulated to prevent arc-over. What is that, if it not catching lightning in a box then Benny? When we charge a capacitor, we are effectively doing this, and that's your patent!
 
Does this mean you've abandoned the concept of catching lightning in a "box", as you accused me of trying to do, despite the fact that I've never claimed that I had any interest in it?

There's no "box", Phil. None. I've been discussing capacitors, not boxes.
 
phlogistician said:
Anyway, you insult US by posting half baked, unscientific and unworkable ideas, and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in them. You have been corrected several times, questioned for your credentials, but you won't take the corrections, nor provide the proof of your alleged qualification. After I did so, you were so uncivil you accused me of lying, despite posting the evidence! Talk about uncivil.
Click to expand...

You haven't seen my circuits, you still use the word "box" when I use the word "capacitor", and you still think that you're qualified to judge me or my circuits?

If you want my respect, start by using the right terminology, and don't think this is your chance to play amateur detective. This is a place to discuss science, not law enforcement.
 
MacGyver1968 said:
LOL!! You're so funny, Benny. Maybe you should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
Click to expand...

MacGyver, I don't like Wikipedia. It's not my idea of an authoritative source. You do know that every entry can be changed by the public, right? And you do know that this makes it different than any true encyclopedia, right?

I grew up in a family that had an encyclopedia. I read it often. I liked knowing that the information they contained was accurate, unless political events changed, like the change almost a century ago from Russia to the Soviet Union, or the change back in 1990. Wikipedia can't match the gravity that they have, and it can't match the respect they have, either.
 
phlogistician - you can give up on BennyF/David ever addressing you or MacGyver intelligently at this point. He's going to latch on to this 'box' statement harder than a pit bull on a toddler wearing a suit made of pork chops. Context, like facts, are lost on BennyF/David because he is not interested in them. He's here for attention, nothing more...and he's reaching the tipping point where he'll begin to insult you and your family and/or make threats against them. He did it over on Yahoo, and continues to do so, to the point the local authorities were notified.
 
BennyF said:
MacGyver, I don't like Wikipedia. It's not my idea of an authoritative source. You do know that every entry can be changed by the public, right? And you do know that this makes it different than any true encyclopedia, right?

I grew up in a family that had an encyclopedia. I read it often. I liked knowing that the information they contained was accurate, unless political events changed, like the change almost a century ago from Russia to the Soviet Union, or the change back in 1990. Wikipedia can't match the gravity that they have, and it can't match the respect they have, either.
Click to expand...

Ok...look up the term "analogy" anywhere you like...because it seem this is just one more thing you are clueless about. Phlog's use of the term "lightning in a box" is just that...an analogy of your magical circuit...yet for some reason, you seem to think he's talking about actual boxes. :roflmao:
 
JTWash said:
phlogistician - you can give up on BennyF/David ever addressing you or MacGyver intelligently at this point. He's going to latch on to this 'box' statement harder than a pit bull on a toddler wearing a suit made of pork chops. Context, like facts, are lost on BennyF/David because he is not interested in them. He's here for attention, nothing more...and he's reaching the tipping point where he'll begin to insult you and your family and/or make threats against them. He did it over on Yahoo, and continues to do so, to the point the local authorities were notified.
Click to expand...


Cool...I love to see a good meltdown.:)
 
phlogistician said:
You have talked about capturing ALL the electrical energy of a lightning strike into your apparatus, which will have to be fully insulated to prevent arc-over. What is that, if it not catching lightning in a box then Benny? When we charge a capacitor, we are effectively doing this, and that's your patent!
Click to expand...

No, it's not, Phil. I haven't once described my patent, a unique method of charging a capacitor.

And one more thing. I've never said anything about the voltage rating or the capacitance of the capacitor in my patent application, so you're out of line twice, once for claiming that my apparatus will be "insulated" (an inappropriate term), and once for implying that it has to be protected from arc-over when I haven't given any specs on the voltage or current levels in my application.

You're confusing the circuitry I discuss here, primarily a very large-scale cap bank, with the circuitry I intend to send to the US Patent Office, which is NOT a cap bank. Understand that what I talk about and what I don't are two very different subjects, and learn some respect.
 
Last edited:
MacGyver1968 said:
Ok...look up the term "analogy" anywhere you like...because it seem this is just one more thing you are clueless about. Phlog's use of the term "lightning in a box" is just that...an analogy of your magical circuit...yet for some reason, you seem to think he's talking about actual boxes.
Click to expand...

My circuitry isn't magical, it's just undisclosed. And unpatented, as far as I can tell, having seen every publicly-available issued patent in Class #320, Subclass #166.

Benny
 
There's an old story that says that nobody can stand an egg on one end except the two days each year when the sun is directly over the equator.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/errata/a/equinox_eggs.htm

If you want to talk about myths, legends, and creatures that don't exist, like unicorns, griffins, hydras, and a cyclops or two, we can take this discussion to one of the other SciForum boards, but on this board, I would like to talk about electric circuits.
 
People seem to be importing personal animosities and issues from other forums into this thread.

To new members: Please realise that you are in a different place now. If you want to continue old conversations, please do so back where you started them. We don't need your personal baggage.
 
James R said:
People seem to be importing personal animosities and issues from other forums into this thread.

To new members: Please realise that you are in a different place now. If you want to continue old conversations, please do so back where you started them. We don't need your personal baggage.
Click to expand...

It is however a valuable insight into the modus operandi of this individual, and James, we have a precedent of using behaviour displayed on other fora to aid decisions made here, several times spam posted here has been googled, found elsewhere, and the user banned. So if we can use the content of other fora for bans, why not as an insight into users posting here? JTWash seems to paint quite an accurate picture also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top