Talk:Testatika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Testatika

Contents

[edit] Links?

Aren't that rather much external links? And to some private homepage hosters? Doesn't Google exists? -- Pjacobi 21:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy dispute

It's electromagnetic and and it is electrostatic and the article carefully doesn't mention the perpetuum mobile claims. So what to do? Pjacobi 20:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

would a link suffice? 65.30.121.64 05:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, actually not. An encyclopedia has to describe how something works. An electromagnetic generator generates electrical energy from mechanical energy by electromagnetic induction. An electrostatic generator (IMHO) generates (not much) electrical energy, typically at high voltages, by separation of charges. Both sort of machines typically need a mechanical energy source. Something has to spin the wheel. Does the the testatika has something like this? Is the energy of some nearby mountain brook employed? Or is it this sort of machines which just turns forevers and produces electrical energy from "Free energy"? Nothing of this is made clear in the article. Pjacobi 06:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IYHO not? Then what? Encyclopedia do describe how something works (That can be inserted ... as this info is not in the article). Mabey a section on operation is needed?
An electromagnetic generator generates electrical energy from mechanical energy by electromagnetic induction. An electrostatic generator generates electrical energy, typically at high voltages, by separation of charges. Both sort of machines typically need a energy source (be that mechanical or another energy form of input).
Something does spin Testatika wheels ... did you not read the available information? It would seem that someone does spins the disks initially. Does the the Testatika have something like this? Yes, IIRC, the references state this. Is the energy of some nearby mountain brook employed? No ... but one could always tap some form of low voltage radiant energy instead of applying the mechanical force to initiate the process.
Does the Testatika machine turn forevers? I am not sure ... I don't think so [I'll see if there is a claim on this or not]. Does it produces electrical energy from "Free energy"? In the sense that energy is produce from the environment, yes. It primarily produces electrical energy, IIRC, from induction and being a regenerative circuit (among other effects occuring).
All of this should be made clear in the article. JDR

Google Testatika + Fraud or Testatika + Methernitha for further insight. - Nunh-huh 04:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

The article got longer and I'm thankfull for this. I'm still unsatisfied.

The sentences The Testatika converts static energy into an electromotive force by means of its oscillation circuit and valve rectifiers. Electric current oscillations is controlled by coupling a thermionic rectifier valve, cylinders capacitors, and natural resistance. has some open questions:

  • What statical eneryg? electrostatic? Or just "static"?
  • Converting energy into force? You may want to convert to , mechanical work.
  • Why must it first oscillate and then rectified? And BTW what? An electrical current I assume.
  • What about the thermionic valves? Wouldnt semiconductor valves not work? Why not?
  • And also what about the shape of condensator? Is cylindrical needed?
  • What's a natural resistance? And why do you want to have an electrical resistance (if it is such) in your circuit? It would waste energy?

O.K. let's pause with the physics.

If this is perfect method to generate power for your chalet, why isn't sold?

IMHO the article isn't complete without shedding some light on this important question.

Pjacobi 10:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

questions: If this is "perfect method" to generate power for your chalet, why isn't sold? I would say this isn't the "perfect method" ... the motion of the disk is a disadvantage [solid state machine correct this ... now, as to your queries) Who _is_ goin to make money off this device other than the consumer thierself ... businesses are not going to make money off it (especially compared to the current power schemes they have currently). The world isn't not worthy to receive this gift? No (BTW, it's not a gift, just an invention ...) ... It's secret knowledge? No ... There is a conspiracy against spreading the idea? No ... there is no credible evidence (or, even, weak evidence) of that which I know of.
What static energy? See the article ... electrostatic? See the article ... "static"? To understand statics more fully, I would advise you read "Static Electricity" Page.
What's a natural resistance? See the article ... What about the thermionic valves? See the article ...Wouldnt semiconductor valves not work? Transistors, you mean I take it. That is not the way it is built (from what I read) ... and I have not see anyone try that approach. Why not? I do not know ... I'll see if I can find an answer.
Why must it first oscillate and then rectified? See the articles ... RLC circuits can be informative also ... electrical oscillations are made by the disk. The electrical oscillations (AC) are turned into continous current (DC) by the rectification (from my understanding).
I'll try to answer the other question later. JDR
Your problem is that you are asking the wrong kind of questions. the whole thing makes a lot more sence when you relise that the thing is yet anther perptial motion fraud. 12:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the whole thing [...] is [...] fraud? Do you have any information on this? A link or citation would be nice to include in the article about this. I would be more than happy to credible information, though I haven't found any to that effect (court sanction or even a lawsuit) ... I will continue look for that though while developing this article. JDR
When I tried to find a description of the Testatika on WWW, which isn't done by the inventor or fans, I was surprisingly unsuccessfull. But perhaps I just didn't put enough time into the research. One interesting mentioning in the context of "Free Energy as new wave of Perpetuum Mobiles" I've found, but it's in german: http://www.gwup.org/ueberuns/konferenzen/2004/freieenergiemaschinen.pdf (The Testatika is at pages 13-17). --- Pjacobi 06:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Even proclaimed perpetual motion machine articles need an attempt of a consistent description how they are supposed to work. If this canoot achieved by any means, perhaps the story of the machine is encyclopedic enough, perhaps like Methernitha gets significant income from perpetual motion machine tourism. If neither can be achieved, this is IMHO a VfD case. Pjacobi 13:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Consistent with what? If the the laws of physic we may have a problem. All though I havn't gone through this particlar case in detial yet, past experiance of other scames suggests that any description of how it works will be desighned to look good to potential investors (which btw is the source of income in this case) not to people trian in this area. I think it should be posible to produce an article on the history and claims of this thing though.Geni 14:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Internally consistant and partially consistent with the physical effect claimed to be used. Ideally then it must be pointed out, were the idea went wrong. But, as an example, to claim The Huba-Buba coils receive acoustical energy from the big bang and the frozen bones of Xenu transform them into AC isn't a valid perpetual motion machine article, except if there is a story of investors pumping 500 millions into this brilliant idea. Pjacobi 14:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have a badd felling that that is not a bad description of how this machine claims to work. VFD seems tempting. 10:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From PNA/Physics

  • Testatika This sort-of perpetuum mobile has already the loving attention of User:Reddi, which I explicitely do not accuse of bad faith. But his ever more involved descriptions of how this engine is supposed to work, I don't know what to say about. See also the VdD discussion [1] -- Pjacobi 18:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Testatika has no hidden batteries or other "hidden" energy sources.

I've removed this because I have seen nop reports that show that a Testatika has been taken awya from the gruop who built it and disembled. Unless this has happened there is no way of garenteeing that there is not some hiden power source.

[edit] reference?

Could someone please get a reference for this " However there is no evidence that such an electron cascade has ever been created." Thanks. JDR 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{disputed}} again

The article shouldn't at leasrt contradict itself. Either is an electromagnetic or an electrostatic generator. If the availability of reliable sources is so low, that this cannot be decided, the article should be severely re-written. --Pjacobi 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi, i'm not surprised that you are in confusion. In the least contradict itself? Please do tell the "contradictions .... otehrwise the tag should be removed. Electromagnetic generator = electrical energy from a mechanical energy source (e.g. the disks turning). Electrostatic generators are a type of electromagnetic generators. The total machine has part that are compose a electromagnetic generation system and a part (eg., the disks) for electrostatic generation (which would be the "prime mover", IIRC). And the quip of "availability of reliable sources" and "severely re-written" is to bais the article and push a POV (the usual one you push). Sincerely, J. D. Redding 16:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (PS., have you read any of the information in external articles? ... probably not ... but it would be nice to know.)

[edit] Perp flag

I restored the flag, which User:Reddi had removed, because until we can thorougly rewrite this article to be less uncritical of the highly dubious claims made by free-energy proponents, we need this warning for the benefit of the general reader. Let us recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for unconventional ideas. It may be appropriate to describe unconventional ideas, but it is crucial to describe them from a NPOV but basically mainstream standpoint.---CH 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this type of mobile exists

the big inventor Henry Coanda (borned in Romania ) made something like this and since 50 years works and still working . This mobile is hidden in a case at romanian police and nobody knows how it`s working.It has platinum and gold in it structures.if u are interested contact me.. and i will make some investigations.

Ignoring other comments, if this device is hidden, how do you know that it's still working? I thought point of Wikipedia guidelines was to stick to the factual. - Dino213b

[edit] Description Technobabble

The description in the article is overly technical and most likely nonsense. The fundamental problem is that it does not anywhere describe the actual principle of operation of this machine. It is very nice that this machine uses "variable capacitance" and "paramagnetic particles," and perhaps this information can be put into a 'Trivia' section at the end of the article, but ultimately this information is mostly irrelevent; it's only apparent purpose is to distract from the fact that it doesn't actually say what how this thing works.

So, if there is an actual documented principle of operation, this principle needs to be described at the very top of the Description section, with proper citations, in terms that makes sense to the general engineering or scientific community. For an example of what I'm talking about, see the second paragraph of Induction_motor. If, on the other hand, there is no documented principle of operation, then the Description section should state this clearly, in the encyclopedic equivilent of "Noone has any idea how this thing is supposed to work." 'Proponents' of this device will then either have to find a citation of the principle of operation, or live with it.

In any case, that nonsense thats there right now either needs to be moved to the end or deleted. If an expert on the device does not do take care of this, then a non-expert will have to, which probably means the whole thing will get axed. AaronWL 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/s/Talk%7ETestatika_5d4a.html"