I've found a little time to look at things here, so I'll knock a few out, more as time permits.
avramenko experiment
This is a (very) basic circut for translating alternating current to direct current, and not a particularly useful one -- although it is a good demonstration of basic AC/DC relationships.
There's nothing bogus about the circut itself. It's the sort of thing that would make a great high school science fair project.
The claims made in regard to the "advantages" and "revolutionary nature" of this circut, however,
are bogus.
For example, proponents claim that by using one wire instead of two, they reduce total wire resistence by half -- while ignoring the fact that to do any useful work, they are now
doubleing the load on their one transmision wire, hence total resistence remains the same.
This method does have it's applications (microwave or radio power transmision, for example, works on esentialy the same principle: using alternating curent to transmit energy without any "return" wire), but it's nothing new or unexpected from a conventional standpoint.
hooper-monstein experiment
This experiment is a fantastic example of drawing the wrong conclusions by failing to look at the system as a whole.
The claim is that induction is occuring within a static magnetic field. The problem is that the experimentors only seem to be looking for induction from the
one wire in the middle and are completely ignoring their big wire loop (conecting the test wire to the meter) which just so happens to be placed perfectly to pick up an asymetrical flux from the two magnets as they move.
If the loop of wire surounded the entire setup uniformily, then, as the claimants claim, there would be zero net magnetic flux and one would expect zero induction.
However, since the loop only surounds half the aparatus, the magnetic field only passes through it in one direction, hence a current is induced in the wires.
The setup DOES create a current, but the hooper-monstein explanation of it is completely wrong. The results are precisely what one would expect from a classical standpoint.
err... this explanation looks a lot less articulate then I had hoped... Let me know if it isn't clear enough.
Edit: Arrgh! spelling!
