Steven E Jones Circuit Gives Evidence For 8x Overunity

Dr. Steven E.
Jones' circuit gives evidence for 8x overunity

Professor Jones has developed a variation of the 'Joule Thief' circuit and has shown evidence that its output is eight times greater than the input as measured by a state-of-the-art oscilloscope. He is open sourcing his solid state design to help speed its development and implementation, as well as to answer the scientific question of where the energy is coming from. by Sterling D. Allan Pure Energy Systems News Retired Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones is working on a simple overunity circuit that he has seen go as high as 20 times overunity; documented on a state-of-the-art Tektronix 3032 oscilloscope at Brigham Young University producing eight times as much energy as was required to run the solid state circuit. One of his friends, Les Kraut, has replicated the circuit and also achieved eight times overunity. As a second and more simple test, Steve let the circuit run overnight, powering an LED bulb; and nine hours later, the input battery was still at the same measured voltage as it has been at the beginning, it used so little power. Normally that would drain the AA battery quite a bit. It's just a small amount of power we're talking about - in the hundreds of milliwatts range (just under a Watt), but it's a start. What is significant about this is 1) the credibility and reputation of Dr. Jones, being something that academic types won't be able to ignore; 2) the rigor of the testing, given the measurement equipment he has access to; 3) the simplicity of the circuit, which is actually open source; 4) the low cost of the circuit components, making it easy to be replicated. "I don't know where the energy is coming from, but it's coming from somewhere," he said. 1) Steven E. Jones' Credibility Dr. Jones is the BYU professor who was racing neck-and-neck with Pons and Fleishmann of the rival University of Utah to the north, with his research in Cold Fusion, as mentioned on his profile page at BYU.edu. He is even better known for his documenting in peer-reviewed
journals the replete thermite found in the several dust samples from the World Trade Centers, proving that controlled demolition was the cause that those three buildings fell at free-fall and near-free-fall speeds. In our news, we featured a very simple solar funnel that he and his students came up with to help indigent peoples be able to cook with solar power. Obviously, he is not a mainstream professor but is pushing the envelope. He sees the same kind of signs of corruption and oppression in the energy sector that he does in the U.S. government (which gave rise to the attacks on 9/11). Steve and I are friends, having several interests in common, and living in the same valley. I've known he's been working on some free energy research, but he's been hesitant to say anything about it until we talked the other night; and I was able to convince him to let me come document what he has done so far, even though he would have liked to have more data first. Given that he will be mentioning his findings at a presentation he's giving next week in California at the Conspiracy Conference, I was able to convince him that he might as well disclose his results now; breaking his cover that he's held for the last several months on the forums under such usernames as "PhysicsProf" or "JouleSeeker". And, it would be a good opportunity to plug the conference to our audience. I was able to visit with Steve and Les on May 26 at Kraut's home to videotape Steve's demonstration of this technology, as well as videotaping Kraut's work with several other Bedinirelated systems, including a 3-foot diameter version of Bedini's Ferris Wheel. He also explained an Energy Crystal that Bedini has been working on lately to bring to people's attention as yet another free energy avenue. Alex Loseman, who has been helping with the greenhouse project on our intentional community project, was with me in our visit with Steve and Les. He is launching a research project that will include replicating, documenting, characterizing, and enlarging on this effect Steve has produced. Though he doesn't have a lot of funds now, with some good results, he has a couple of sources of getting additional investment. After our visit, he was on his way to the airport to pick up another researcher who will be working on this with him. 2) Rigor of Testing Only a minority of researchers in the free energy community have access to and knowledge of how to run an oscilloscope. An even smaller subset have access to university equipment such as the Tektronix 3032 (at 300MHz) oscilloscope. Some people try for years to get some professor to take enough of an interest to validate their findings. In Tektronix shot showing 8x OU. Steve's case, he is a Professor, and he's the researcher, so he's in a very unique position here. So when he says he's documented 8x overunity, it holds a lot more credence than when someone else says the same thing.
click image for enlarged image
In our filming, he said: "My feeling is that the results with the Tektronix 3032 are quite compelling. That doesn't mean I understand where this energy is coming from. I don't. It certain shows, repeatedly, that the output power is greater than the input power." 3,4) Simplicity of the Circuit; Inexpensive Here is the two-part video (1 | 2) of Steve explaining his circuit and measurement results as well as ideas for scaling it up. Note how simple the circuit is. I'm guessing we're looking at less than $50 in components and three hours to build this one-off proof of concept circuit.
Part I
Part II
Here is a schematic image Steve sent me, saying, "there are small but important changes in the resistors and capacitors in the few variations we are studying."
Instructions for the toroid winding. More info here:
The circuit is a derivation of the "Joule Thief" circuit or a "blocking oscillator". His variation has an LC-circuit feeding into the base of the transistor (which is unusual) which regulates the
resonant frequency of the device. He calls this circuit a "boost resonator" because it resonates at a certain frequency, and since the evidence shows that it somehow boosts the input power. "I also found a way to 'tune' the efficiency, n, and to reduce the net input power to nearly zero." He continues: With my particular toroid (which was hand-wound), I had excellent results with these conditions: Vin 2.5 V AA's Rb 2K ohms Ro 9.8K Rr 3.1ohm MPS2222 transistor C-B 151 pF D = red LED L-B, L-O bifilar 9turns, ferrite toroid 1"OD, 1/2"ID, 7/16" tall; ~90uH each I(t) by V over 1ohm CSR's (current-sensing resistor) Open Source: We'll be posting a PESWiki feature page about this open source project soon. If you happen to get involved in a commercial version of this open source project, selling plans, kits, components, finished systems, licensing, etc., please remit at least a 5% royalty to Steve's team who is helping disseminate this information. Hopefully it wont be long before practical iterations of this device are powering endless lighting fixtures, beginning with single LED bulbs; then small electronics; then appliances; then vehicles. ### This story is also published at BeforeItsNews.
Links

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=122.0 - OU Research "bench" http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=853.0 - "There you will find the schematic of my little contribution, attached are two versions (there are small but important changes in the resistors and capacitors in the few variations we are studying)." Data also given. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.0 Thread commenced May 20, 2011.
What You Can Do
1. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources. 2. Get involved in replicating this. 3. Get involved in commercializing this. 4. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going. 5. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector. 6. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology.
See also
Resources at PESWiki.com

Directory:Electromagnetic Directory:Solid_State_Generators Directory:Les_Kraut More stories by Sterling D. Allan
Re: Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. Reply #3 on: 2011-05-20, 05:12:47
Ferrite toroid 1"OD, 0.5"ID, 7/16" high, electronic goldmine G6683 or whatever you've got - try it. Insulated Cu, 22 gauge (20-23). Now fun part: Bifilar winding CW, see attachment, 9 (+/-) turns. Combined pair to point 7, then one wire to C-B, other to point 4 (schm).
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. BifilarWindingHowTo.jpg (66.76 KB, 429x624 - viewed 2766 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. on: 2011-05-20, 02:47:40
For various reasons, asking that all posts in this thread be Terse and Technical. Q's here OK if terse, or by PM. Eschew dialog. No term "C OP" or "O U" pls. Pls replicate.
Vin 2.5 V AA's Rb 51K MPS2222 C-B 151 pF D red LED L-B, L-O bifilar 9turns, ferrite toroid 1"OD, ~90uH each Ro 0 Rr 0 Cout 10,000uF @16V, disconnected normally I(t) by V over 1ohm CSR's
Then
DVM 5-7: ~zero (DSO shows Vpp 12.7V, f ~ 1.4MHz) DVM 5(red)-6(black) + 5.1V (DSO: Vpp ~5.1V), Co charges to ~4.8V in ~5 secs when added DVM 6(black)-7(red) +0.6V (DSO: Vpp 3.4V) Dim red.
Reps should show ~same as first step.
------------------------------SJ1Mar2011.pdf (1174.4 KB - downloaded 337 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-29, 14:44:51 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Group: Moderator Posts: 316
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. Kra18MayCf.png (314.64 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 2411 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-20, 04:45:52 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
------------------------------PhotKraPinY.pdf (2675.98 KB - downloaded 89 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. photKraYPin.jpg (72.47 KB, 420x318 - viewed 2077 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-20, 14:35:37 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. BifilarWindingHowTo.jpg (66.76 KB, 429x624 - viewed 2770 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-20, 22:09:11 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
------------------------------JTSchemEMD.png (0 KB - downloaded 51 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. sj1CfATTEN.png (1170.34 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 2147 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. Pin2VcircuitB.png (357.79 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 1756 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. sj-1AprPin^Pout.png (642.06 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 147 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-20, 14:46:06 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. sj1schematic.jpg (209.18 KB, 1563x944 - viewed 558 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. try3.jpg (402.56 KB, 1651x1275 - viewed 430 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-20, 23:45:36 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
ION
Group: Global Moderator Posts: 574 It's turtles all the way down
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. PN2222 hfe.jpg (21.3 KB, 782x160 - viewed 197 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-21, 03:25:58 by ION IP: [ Logged ]
kooler
Position: Newbie Posts: 21 if i have to i will steal it !!
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
kooler
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. YelRedClr.png (1233.38 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 156 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. YelRedFuz.png (1197.4 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 120 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-21, 07:11:42 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Position: Full Member Posts: 151
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
kooler
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. emitter circuit.png (14.58 KB, 971x284 - viewed 372 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Dumped
------------------------------Beware the Semmelweis Reflex! Chinese proverb: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it."
IP: [ Logged ]
kooler
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. FEosc.jpg (109.53 KB, 1117x891 - viewed 373 times.) FEosc.txt (1.38 KB - downloaded 48 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
Group: Administrator Posts: 1333 It's not as complicated as it may seem...
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. 1p4MHz.png (223.21 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 239 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-05-23, 14:33:36 Thanks for the change, .99. Any chance you'll do a replication of this circuit, and tests including Pout / Pin?
Professor,
I'm currently on vacation. When I
return, I will likely be building the oscillator Rose is currently working on. Glen has sent me some additional MOSFET's, so I can build the full version. I'll be doing some testing on that circuit.
Hopefully the sim for your circuit can be developed to produce results closer to what you are seeing. That way you'll be able to probe anywhere in the circuit and perhaps determine where the differences are between the sim and bench unit.
Regards, .99
Re: Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. R e p ly # 2 5 o n :
2 0 1 1 0 5 2 3, 2 1 : 4 9 : 5 2
PhysicsProf,
Ex has pointed out K1 (coupling). This, and the circuit values of the secondary components, will have an effect upon the result frequency compared to the results of the web calculator you used. An increased secondary load will increase the frequency since this decreases the primary inductive impedance reactance (more appropriate).
I would expect the measured frequency to be a bit higher than the web calculator says.
When all of these factors are entered into the sim the simulator should reflect what you are seeing, as far as frequency goes. I'll not speculate on the rest.
------------------------------"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. FEosc-traces.png (61.67 KB, 820x1104 - viewed 451 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. FEosc-Power-Energy-schematics.png (40.88 KB, 732x786 - viewed 453 times.) FEosc-2N2222.asc (1.8 KB - downloaded 27 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. sj1schematic.jpg (209.18 KB, 1563x944 - viewed 435 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
duff
Position: Newbie Posts: 28
Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:16:39 by duff IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:41:06 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
duff
PhysicsProf
duff
PhysicsProf
duff
duff
exnihiloest
------------------------------FEosc-2N2222-2.asc (1.9 KB - downloaded 13 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 10:13:30 by exnihiloest IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
duff
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
dllabarre
------------------------------DonL IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
IP: [ Logged ]
lanenal
------------------------------Joule Thief steals Joules from the invisible Vacuum ?! IP: [ Logged ]
lanenal
Last Edit: 2011-05-28, 12:01:11 by lanenal ------------------------------Joule Thief steals Joules from the invisible Vacuum ?! IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
I built the real circuit yesterday. I have some problem for it to work. I was unable to make oscillate a 2N2222A. With a transistor better designed for HF frequencies, such 2N2369 or 2N2218, the circuit oscillates but at frequencies around 80 Mhz! Obviously
this frequency is not related to L and C values. I tried with 2 different toroids and coils, and I got similar results. Moreover one of the two coils can be reversed and the oscillation remains the same. The only result according to the simulation is the "modulation" of the HF signal by a signal of much lower frequency, linked to the time constant RbCb, only when Cb is exceeding a certain threshold value (that I don't know, I used a variable capacitor). For me it is a variant of a Colpitt's oscillator, so I don't see what is wrong.
Re: Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. R e p ly # 5 0 o n :
2 0 1 1 0 5 2 8, 1 2 : 2 7 : 1 6
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-05-20, 05:12:47 Ferrite toroid 1"OD, 0.5"ID, 7/16" high, electronic goldmine G6683 or whatever you've got try it. Insulated Cu, 22 gauge (20-23). Now fun part: Bifilar winding CW, see attachment, 9 (+/-) turns. Combined pair to point 7, then one wire to C-B, other to point 4 (schm).
This might be of interest for some who would like to replicate:
[quote link=http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/archive/index.php/t-39439.html] I just ran some tests on that 5-pack of toroids I received from Electronic Goldmine: G6683 The Al value is around 10,000, which is quite high. 10 turns of magnet wire gave me 936uH; 20 turns were 4mH. [/quote]
lanenal
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
lanenal
------------------------------Joule Thief steals Joules from the invisible Vacuum ?!
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. sj-1AprPin^Pout.png (642.06 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 356 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
lanenal
exnihiloest
------------------------------FEosc-2N2222-3.asc (1.62 KB - downloaded 22 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
------------------------------FEosc-2N2222-3.asc (1.61 KB - downloaded 10 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-28, 21:46:25 by exnihiloest IP: [ Logged ]
gotoluc
Position: Jr. Member Posts: 74
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. Pin.png (5.71 KB, 412x101 - viewed 244 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. Pout.png (12.02 KB, 486x176 - viewed 230 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-29, 06:27:24 by gotoluc IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
IP: [ Logged ]
gotoluc
Last Edit: 2011-05-29, 06:13:17 by gotoluc IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. LucPinPout?.jpg (91.66 KB, 543x418 - viewed 218 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
gotoluc
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
ION
IP: [ Logged ]
gotoluc
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. sj1schematic tested by gotoluc.JPG (265.19 KB, 1563x944 - viewed 134 times.)
Re: Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only.
R e p ly # 7 5 o n : 2 0 1 1 0 5 2 9, 1 8 : 4
8 : 0 2
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-05-29, 07:13:34
Luc: 1.067 V across the 4700 Ohm Rout is significantly low, compared to my circuit and the replication by Les K.
@PhysicsProf,
have you or Les K. measured Pout the way I did? If so please point me to where I can see this data.
Relying on scopes only can be misleading!... I don't think anything beats a real load test.
If I'm wrong, then I have had OU two or more years back and could not prove it using this method.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
lanenal
lanenal
gotoluc
IP: [ Logged ]
lanenal
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
lanenal
PhysicsProf
lanenal
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
ION
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. itsuCapTime.png (1071.44 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 162 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
PhysicsProf,
OK, i will keep on experimenting, but i am on my work
right now, so that will be later today.
Concerning the: " indeed the dual DMM method creates different results all the time." , what i meant is that it probably is not the dual DDM method itself (i think its accurate), but rather the nature of this circuit (oscillator) which keeps on influencing the components (capacitive feedback) and creating different oscillations all the time (and current pull).
Concerning the inductance of the coils, i think yours are very low (90microH) I wound another one (smaller od, 8 windings each, so more in line with yours), and
measured it to be 330mH (1 third of my former one).
Anyway, i am following the severall forums, so i will keep up with the results others are presenting.
Regards Itsu
Professor
First a little background on the single chamber test method.
The idea behind the single chamber method is that the DUT is placed into a thermal chamber with some fixed losses to ambient. A heat rise will be generated within that chamber that will eventually stabilize at some temperature above ambient.
Power input in the steady state is noted, and the test is repeated without the DUT in the chamber, except in this case we try to obtain the same rise over ambient using a resistive heater and manual adjustment of the power supply, again noting the final power input to obtain the identical heat rise over ambient.
If there is no anomalous heat gain in the DUT, similar results should be obtained, and power input should be the same. This method requires two steps and has been so named the two step method.
The dual chamber thermal method is a refinement and automation of the single chamber test method shown below. In this case the entire process is automated using a PID control algorithm to "servo" the control chamber to the same temperature rise as the DUT.
As long as the test chambers are nearly identical, with roughly the same fixed losses to ambient, we
do not need to care what those fixed losses are, as we are attempting to obtain a "null" reading. We can indeed "characterize" the test chambers using fixed heaters in each to determine the limits of accuracy of the test.
Any device that we are testing will have many heat sources to consider. The thermal chamber method sums up all the heat losses, which should be equal to power input. If the final heat rise over ambient seems to be greater than power input in the control chamber, we can begin to look for a source of heat gain.
In the dual chamber method shown below, the DUT and load resistor should be placed in the chamber. Thermocouples should not be taped to the resistors, but placed at the top of the chambers. This diagram was made for a different purpose, where open air testing of load resistors was being compared, but you should get the idea.
I'm sorry if this is not clear. I have many years of experience using these methods so I tend leave a lot of holes in my explanations. Think of it as a balance scale in that that we are attempting to find the unknown quantity by comparing it to a known quantity.
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. TwoStep.jpg (39.94 KB, 593x282 - viewed 114 times.)
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. NULL Power.jpg (39.99 KB, 643x349 - viewed 113 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
-------------------------------
Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. powerplot.bmp (1980.22 KB, 749x902 - viewed 110 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Last Edit: Today at 01:50:03 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
lanenal
Peterae
Group: Administrator Posts: 860
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Re: Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. Reply #109 on: Today
laneal -- was it you who had the information/specs on the 1"OD, 0.5"ID, 7/16" high, electronic goldmine G6683 toroid that I used? Can you give what information you have on this toroid?
Thanks -- soon to hit the road again! sorry no computer contact for a while.
Measuring POWER in a motor-generator or transformer o n : 2 0 1 1 0 5 2 5 , 0
7 : 5 4 : 2 0
Thinking, pondering. I recall as a child wondering what would happen if a guy hooked up a generator to an electric motor, then took the output of the generator and fed it back into the motor. Could you get it to keep running?
That's what we're talking about here really -- correct me if I'm wrong -- with the Muller, RomeroUK, Bedini etc. devices. Even if they somehow want to combine the motor with the generator (MG) with a single rotor, it's still such a combination.
Later when I studied Physics, I learned that this is IMPOSSIBLE to keep running, due to something called the Second Law of Thermodynamics... Entropy and all that. Graduate school, PhD in Physics -they drilled this in. Heck, I drilled it in.
But of course, if there is an OUTSIDE SOURCE of ENERGY, then the combo can keep running as long as the OSE continues, with no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Like gasoline added to the motor/generator.
Fast forward to the present and find inventors claiming they've GOT IT -- a self-running motogenerator (MG) combo. OK -- once this is EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED and replicated and verified again, THEN we can do experiments to determine the nature of the OSE.
It really doesn't help to make progress if someone says IN ADVANCE of experiments, that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Really, that is just a statement that there is NO other source of energy than those already currently known.
I'm not willing to take such an arrogant Lord-Kelvin attitude. I'm willing to let experiments take the first step, does it work? Make the measurements carefully THEN we can worry about determining the OSE. (And at that stage, I predict finding the OSE will be relatively easy through carefully-designed experiments.)
SO -- my question has to do with HOW to make rigorous MEASUREMENTS of a moto-gen (MG) combo.
Help me on this, I know how to do measurements of V and I using a Tek 3032 DPO, for example. Is that the best way here with an MG?
Example:
Motor is 12 V DC and draws a few amps. Generator is 12 V DC and puts out a few amps.
Critical now to MEASURE the Vin and Iin accurately as well as the Vout and Iout -- or any other reliable way to measure Pin and Pout. BE sure to allow for PULSED DC.
I await your best thoughts and suggestions on how to reliably do these measurements. Then I want to build a simple MG combo and test out the methods.
Thanks, in advance! I know you guys have good ideas.
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloes t Position: Full Member Posts: 151
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Re: Measuring POWER in a motor-generator or transformer Reply #12 on: 2011-05-31, 06:49:27
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-05-29,
20:09:38 Professor, I would bet my house on the results obtained via the dualDMM RC filter method. ... A DC source is a PF=1 source, therefore we not only can, but should filter out the high frequency components when measuring the input power. 40mW sounds very plausible, based on the testing I performed on the JT circuits. Perhaps a simulation of this latest variant is in order, esp. since no one seems to be able to get the same frequency of operation.
.99
Wow! I'm inclined to accept your bet, given my results with a capacitor for the input (Ein) and a stopwatch to measure the time. This is not a JT circuit, really, since components have been moved around significantly.
Anyway, experiments rule, as discussed on the other thread:
Four 10K uF caps, to run the sj1 circuit. By measuring the volts before and after 30 seconds on the caps, I can calculate input power!
delta-E = 1/2 C(Vi**2 - Vf**2) , Pin = deltaE / deltaT , 30 seconds. C = 40mF.
Start, Vinitial =
1.385V , Vfinal = 1.255V
So delta-E = 6.8 mJoules. and Pin = 6.8/30sec = 0.23 mW . Yet the LED glows dimly on the output leg......
(see http://www.overunit yresearch.com/inde x.php? topic=853.msg1430 4#msg14304 )
This is MUCH less than 40 mW reported by Itsu, and I'm asking him to repeat his measurement using both the dual-DMM method AND this cap&stop-watch method, so we can check the dual-DMM method.
Strange voltage measurements - can anyone explain? on: 2011-04-28, 16:33:20
Consider the "reverse-JT" circuit that we have developed -- schematic attached.
The resistor to the base is 2kohms, L1 and L2 are approx 80 uH (I wound a new toroid like the old one, will measure L's precisely soon). MPS2222 transistor. Cap is 150 pF.
Vbatt is 2.48 volts, from 2 rechargeable AA's. NOTE: I have replaced the 1 ohm CSR2 with 50.6 Kohms, and the red LED still lights! (though dimly)
I have been puzzling over voltage measurements I've taken on the "output leg" of this circuit -- let's start with measurement of V3, from P21G-to-V3.
V3, from P21G-to-V3 = 0.00 mV (auto-ranging DMM)
Now, the voltage drops across the 50.6 Kohm resistor and LED.
To be clear, I attached the DMM
such that both voltages will read as POSITIVE voltages, and this means the black probe is connected to the point P22T and the red probe is connected to P21G .
Then the voltage across the 50.6 Kohm Resistor is +5.1 volts.
-- that is correct, I have not made a mistake. I cannot explain why the voltage is POSITIVE and so large relative to Vbatt and request efforts to explain.
Next puzzle, with the black probe on point P22T and the red probe of the DMM on point V3,
the voltage across the LED is +0.6V and it is dimly (but very visibly) lit up, glowing red.
I checked the direction of the LED -- it is correct, as shown in the attached schematic. I applied a voltage of 2.48V with negative on point P22T (where the black probe of the DMM was connected) and positive on point P21T (where the red DMM probe was connected) -- and the LED did NOT light. Yet it lights up in this circuit. EXPLAIN THAT, IF YOU CAN. I would really appreciate a valid explanation.
(The LED lit up when the battery connections were reversed.)
Next, I replaced the 50.6 Kohm resistor with a 468ohm resistor, and these are the voltages -- with the SAME probe connections as described above:
Then the voltage across the 468 ohm Resistor is +1.03 volts.
The voltage across the LED is +0.90 volts and it is brightly lit up, glowing red.
The voltage from P21G (black probe now) to P21T, that is, V3, is: V3= 0.03mV (nearly zero, as before).
I'm puzzling over this and request your advice/explanations, all.
-------------------------------
Strange voltage measurements - can anyone explain? JSschemB.png (177.03 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 238 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Room3327
------------------------------"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be
rational, obtain it without consumption of any material" Nicola Tesla IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Room3327
------------------------------"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material" Nicola Tesla IP: [ Logged ]
allcanadian
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
WaveWatcher
Position: Hero Member Posts: 771
WaveWatcher
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
ION
IP: [ Logged ]
WaveWatcher
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
WaveWatcher
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
-------------------------------
Strange voltage measurements - can anyone explain?
energyconservation.jpg (30.33 KB, 1092x661 - viewed 90 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Strange voltage measurements - can anyone explain? Reply #24 on: 2011-05-01, 23:44:26
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-05-01, 19:36:03 Radiated heat and light are the same thing. What is considered "light" is really just a question of the wavelength sensitivity curve for the human retina. Different species have different wavelength sensitivity curves associated with their sense of vision. I am assuming a typo and you meant to say "light + heat = V^2/R OR I^2R.
radiated heat is infrared, heat is heat. That is what I think. Thank you for your kindness MH, it's not a typo.
Re: Strange voltage measurements - can anyone explain? R e
p l y # 2 5 o n : 2 0 1 1 0 5 0 2 , 0 2 : 5 1 : 4 8
Okay so if it is not a typo then it is wrong. Your theories about the two different energy forms translating into adding V^2/R and I^2R together to account for the two energy forms needs another look on your part.
V^2/R and I^2R are a way of expressing power. The root in both cases is P = VI and I = V/R. It's nothing more than an exercise in algebra to show the equivalency of V^2/R and I^2R. There is nothing separate and distinct about either term. It goes right back to me saying that there is no power in a voltage-only or a current-only setup.
MileHigh
(corrected my typo)
Last Edit: 2011-05-03, 03:15:02 by MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
allcanadian
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
allcanadian
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
allcanadian
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloe st Position: Full Member Posts: 151
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelm holtz Position: Full Member Posts: 103
Re: Strange voltage measurements - can anyone explain? Reply #42 on:
Quote from: exnihiloe st on 2011-0504, 07:42:39 May I suggest you to invest in something like that:
http://sjsu .bncollege. com/wcsst ore/Exten dedSitesC atalogAsse tStore/714 _71401_9 9_5256_N I/images/F ULLIMAGE _85346.jp g
OMG!!! Gibbs made a mistake! This is awsome. Nice catch.
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n on: 2011-03-21, 21:15:49
We have discussed the critically-important matter of painstaking measurements before; it is worth it's own thread here as reliable measurements are a principal goal with me and many others. And I have some particular questions based on recent observations. Let's start with quotes from a related thread: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php? topic=764.msg12282;topicseen#msg --
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-03-21, 06:30:37 A few days ago, I was able to spend some time with the Tektronix 3032 and several variations on the basic JT circuit. Measuring Pout, Pin and n as discussed above, I might summarize n values to show the spread in values obtained and recorded:
n = .81, .52,.59, .63, .52, .35, .45, .80, .13, .77, .61, .79, .88, .62, .94, .99, .92, 1.0, .69, 1.06 So yes, there were some "interesting values", though I would say the last value is still consistent with unity (given the +-3% errors as previously stated, 2 sigma). In the process of taking measurements, I realized the importance of reviewing HOW the measurements are taken, and the importance of simulations AS A WAY OF CHECKING THE MEASUREMENT METHOD, for example where the probes are attached. Also, if there is an input of power in the circuit somewhere (and somehow) -- just how will this show up? as an increase in current at some point, or an increase in voltage along a path? I think the latter, from observations, but all this has to be checked -- and then re-checked. I believe simulations will help in this effort of re-checking. This issue is so important that I propose to come back to this tomorrow on another thread I'll start -- "Measuring Pin, Pout, n -- Simulations etc."
To which .99 kindly replied:
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-03-21, 13:37:25 Sounds like a very good plan Professor. I'll help out where I can.
One thing I will suggest, is that you try the RC filter/two-DVM method for obtaining a Pin figure. I will draw up an amendment to the schematic to show exactly how to do it. This will not only provide you with another method to obtain Pin, but a way of checking your scope Pin measurements. If you do not have two DMM's (digital multi-meters), you can buy them quite cheaply. As a bonus to this method, not only is it inexpensive, accurate, and accessible (not requiring a scope channel), it allows more freedom as to where and how the Pout can be measured, because there is no longer a common ground between the two measurements, i.e. the scope grounds always limit this flexibility. The Pin measurement is essentially "floating" wrt the scope ground. .99
I do have two DMM's and look forward to your alternative method, .99 -- very much in fact.
Meanwhile, I would like to understand results I obtained with the Tek 3032 last Friday, as attached along with the schematic for the straightforward transistor-resonator circuit (TRC). The TRC circuit discussed here is shown on the right; a standard JT circuit is shown on the left for comparison. There is one change -- a 1N4148 diode has been added at point 5 before (in series with) the LED. Here are details of the circuit (on the right):
1.46V AA battery (measured by DMM) CSR1 = 1.1 ohms Rb = 979 ohms MPS2222A transistor Capacitor (C2) = 151 pF (note: corrected to pF; measured) Diode at point 5 = 1N4148 LED = red diode
Ferrite toroid (2 cm OD, 0.9 cm ID, 1.1 cm tall) was would bifilar with eight windings of 23 gauge enameled copper wire. Here are measured values for the two windings, using an MCP meter BR2822:
L1 (between Points 5 and 7); L2 between point 5 and capacitor C2 (feedback loop).
L1 at 120 Hz: R=0.0336 ohms, Z = 0.0614 ohms, L = 68.0 uH, C = 0.
L1 at 1 KHz: R=0.0359 ohms, Z = 0.4257 ohms, L = 67.4 uH, C = 376 uF.
L1 at 10 KHz: R=0.0631 ohms, Z = 4.27 ohms, L = 66.9 uH, C = 3.8 uF.
L2 at 120 Hz: R=0.0322 ohms, Z = 0.0699 ohms, L = 82.0 uH, C = 0.
L2 at 1 KHz: R=0.0351 ohms, Z = 0.5124 ohms, L = 81.3 uH, C = 311 uF.
L2 at 10 KHz: R=0.0666 ohms, Z = 5.08 ohms, L = 80.8 uH, C = 3.14 uF.
I invite (and would much appreciate) .99 and/or Humbugger and/or others to do a SIMULATION of this circuit, to see whether one can:
1. Replicate the observed Power In (Pin) and Power Out (Pout) waveforms, even approximately.
I used: Mean Pin = Mean (V1*V2), given that I2 = V2 to a close approximation since CSR1 = 1.1 ohms. (which I measured afterwards; for future runs, I will look for a CSR1 closer to 1.0 ohms) Mean Pout = Mean (V3*V2), where V3 is measured between points 5 and 3 on the labeled schematic attached.
2. Pin appears basically as "negative" because of the way V2 is measured -- I will however set the +y axis downward and refer to this as "positive power", hoping this will not be too confusing. Pout is more interesting in that it shows both "positive" and "negative" power excursions, repeatedly.
3. Spikes in the data are also seen and should be replicated in the simulation.
4. Note that I acquired Mean power values over a number of cycles, to improve the accuracy, so details in the waveform are not easily seen. But important features are seen and should be reproduced by a successful Simulation.
5. MEAN Pout comes out to be a very small value, 367 micro-V*V = 0.367 mVV, owing to the fact that the power curve Pout goes both positive and negative. Clearly, the voltage and current in this part of the circuit are frequently of OPPOSITE PHASE (OP, previously called OOP). We can calculate efficiency n:
n = Pin/Pout = 0.367/21.57 = 0.017 = 1.7%.
Viewing the Tek taking Mean values for Pout, I see that Pout is fluctuating around ZERO, and when I hit the stop button, the value came out to 0.367 mVV (very small compared to input power) -- but it could have been zero or even of opposite sign from the input power if I had hit the stop button at a different instant. Trouble is, the LED was glowing very brightly and I flat don't believe this result of n = 1.7%.
I would like to see what a decent simulation says about the efficiency n, and if the method used is correct (which we discussed rather thoroughly before, Mean Power instead of RMS Power, etc.) Clearly the RMS output power is much greater than the Mean output power, which
latter is close to zero, and I am left wondering about the method we have developed.
There seems to be something wrong, and I hope the simulation and discussion will elucidate what is
going on and how to get an accurate assessment of n for this straightforward circuit.
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n LegBattCf.png (645.61 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 177 times.)
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n 2JTBrSchema.png (1272.46 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 174 times.) Last Edit: 2011-03-21, 23:52:09 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
allcanadian
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
Group: Administrator
Posts: 1333 It's not as complicated as it may seem...
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n LTJT2_schema04.gif (23.38 KB, 1212x700 - viewed 125 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
-------------------------------
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n Groundloop special sim.bmp (1006.77 KB, 680x379 - viewed 100 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
humbugger
Position: Sr. Member Posts: 369 Try and keep a threaded rod number of sorts.
------------------------------"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" Albert Einstein IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n
spike_integration.JPG (44.78 KB, 1262x796 - viewed 25 times.) Last Edit: 2011-03-22, 19:49:56 by EMdevices IP: [ Logged ]
Dumped
Last Edit: 2011-03-22, 21:14:05 by Dumped ------------------------------Beware the Semmelweis Reflex! Chinese proverb: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n LTJT2_schema03_mod.gif (17.38 KB, 1102x845 - viewed 20 times.) Last Edit: 2011-03-22, 21:37:45 by EMdevices IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
------------------------------BRCircuitSchem.pdf (1714.58 KB - downloaded 12 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n LTJT2_schema04.GIF (13.78 KB, 1102x755 - viewed 24 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n LegBattDetailPout.png (119.54 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 25 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n Reply #24 on: 2011-03-22, 22:25:28
me:
Quote PS -- I see that you have another schematic, EMD -thanks -- I'll get
back to you later on this, after we finish the simple exercise delineated above which should help us in communicating (I hope!). I tried your idea of reversing the LED -- interesting -- it glows brightly EITHER direction! That was a good idea... I can hardly wait to get back up to the Tek 3032 at the University to look at the waveforms, zoomed in for detail, for the two cases...
So I added another LED diode parallel to the first, but in the opposite polarity -and they BOTH light up! the LED in the direction you show appears to be somewhat brighter (both red LED's). Good idea, EMD...
e: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n
R e p l y # 2 5 o n : 2 0 1 1 0
3 2 2 , 2 3 : 5 8 : 4 8
Quote The question is, again: How do we evaluate the output power when the power waveform has a significant AC component and the current and voltage are not in phase?
I would say the basic fundamental equation for average powerflow doesn't "care" what the phase relation is between the voltage or current, it all works out just fine.
P_avg = (1/T) * integral of [ v(t) * i(t) ] over one cycle, where 'T' is the period.
But if you want to use a scope to average, like I sense most of you want to, then you must implement another CSR resistor, like I show in my previous two schematics, then you can get away with just using the scope MEAN function, because now you have decoupled the two energy flows (or rather the output signal is well defined now). Most importantly though, use DC coupling for the probes.
P_in = MEAN [ V1 * V2 ] / 1ohm
P_out = MEAN [ V3 * V4 ] / 1ohm
so then efficiency can be calculated as:
n = MEAN[ V1 * V2 ] / MEAN[ V3 * V4]
Do you want me and Dumped to integrate that red signal in your picture? in my explanation so far.
I'm sorry, I think I failed
You see we do not have enough resolution in that spike, the answer I do understand that you have to go back to the
would not be accurate if we did integrate.
university, so when you do get there and can take another zoomed in shot then I'll be more than happy to integrate. I hope I didn't insinuate that you do not know how to integrate.
EM
Last Edit: 2011-03-23, 03:47:10 by EMdevices IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
Last Edit: 2011-03-23, 05:01:34 by feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
humbugger
Position: Sr. Member Posts: 369 Try and keep a threaded rod number of sorts.
------------------------------"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" Albert Einstein IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n IMG_2140.JPG (3106.08 KB, 3888x2592 - viewed 149 times.)
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n IMG_2144.JPG (3395.25 KB, 3888x2592 - viewed 138 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n prof_gl_schema01.png (14.34 KB, 758x594 - viewed 73 times.)
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n prof_gl_scope01.png (19.39 KB, 856x923 - viewed 80 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n BrProbLots.png (648.23 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 14 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
Was your problem the sign (+/-) of the power curve?
Here you are Professor, values as shown on diagram.
The Rsim1,2 on the diagram are attached to the power indication pin, and they can not be left open-circuited. I have attached a 1 Giga-Ohm resistor.
.99
-------------------------------
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
WaveWatcher
-------------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n BR2LEDs25Mar11.png (602.5 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 97 times.)
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n New1v2LED.png (561.44 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 93 times.)
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n New2V2Led.png (595.06 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 87 times.)
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n BRPledRt.png (551.6 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 85 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n 2JTBrSchema.png (1272.46 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 17 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
-------------------------------
RMS.bmp (56.33 KB, 98x147 - viewed 106 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n EMD22Mar11.png (430.29 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 20 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
Group: Administrator
-------------------------------
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Quote from: poynt99 on 201103-30, 01:21:12 No, I can not explain it. Your measurement of a few hundred uW is also odd, don't you think? If that was not an error, then something must be at play which is causing that LED to glow, even though it is not using a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, I can not "see" if the LED is glowing in the sim. Yes, that would be correct. Here are the p(t) wave forms. I did not include the one LED because it shows no net power.
.99
I think you are mistaking the data taken with the bad probe connection with the data acquired later (4 attachments shown above), which have outputs typically in the tens of mW range; although for the 1 LED case, Pout was only about 1.1 mW. Note the summary I provided (output power in bold here):
So, three voltages and the calculated n values (all data are attached below, starting with the 1.46 V = battery voltage run) Vin Pin(mW) n 1.7 Pout
(mW) 1.0 3.2 53% 1.46 32.9
19.7
60% <-repeated for numerous cycles, same n found 1.46 30 21
70% <-- .99's SIM for comparison
with above... appears fairly consistent to me 2.0 105.2 83% 86.9
1.46 10.5 10.5%
1.1
I'll comment on the waveforms later; gotta run to a community meeting this pm.
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n R e p l y # 7 5 o n : 2 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 , 0 2 : 2 1 : 2 3
@99
With reference to the last sim you posted:
Reply:#72 prof_gl_scope06.png http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=773.0;attach=4526
Did you really use 8H for L1 & L2 in that sim???
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n EMD22Mar11.png (430.29 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 144 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
-------------------------------
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n EMD22Mar11.png (430.29 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 95 times.) JBoostPhoto3Apr11.pdf (2102.72 KB - downloaded 15 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
PS -- the above questions are serious, not some sort of game. Although I did enjoy posing such questions to students
in my classes, I will certainly admit.
I would like to know how to determine efficiency n of circuits by various methods -in this case, how to ACCURATELY use capacitors to provide input energy and to store the output energy.
Hi Professor, and welcome back from your trip.
You are absolutely correct, in that 50% of the energy will be lost in such a direct cap-to-cap transfer. The "lost" energy is dissipated in the wiring between the two capacitors, and it matters not how low that resistance be, it will always amount to 50% loss.
When we insert an inductor in between the two capacitors, things begin to change and we are able to transfer the energy with less loss. The efficiency of this method depends on the inductor. The higher the inductance and the lower its DC resistance, the better. In other words, we want to use an inductor with as high a Q-factor (L/R ratio) as possible.
In my opinion, using two caps in this case as you have suggested as a means to determine circuit efficiency, may be more complicated and less accurate.
I'll let others weigh in on the merit of this approach however.
You may be interested in reading the attached document I put together some time ago, on this very subject.
.99
-------------------------------
Capacitor Energy Transfer V1.0.pdf (332.26 KB - downloaded 19 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n 2JTBrSchema.png (1272.46 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 94 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
As an alternative to obtain the Pin, you can use the scope math to perform (V1-V2), then take the MEAN of that. This will give you the average battery voltage. Then you can multiply that by the MEAN voltage across the CSR to get average battery power.
so in summary, you have:
MEAN[(V1-V2)] * MEAN[V2] = Pin
.99
Rigor without Rancor in the Search for Novel Energy Sources
o n : 2 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 , 1 9 : 5 0 : 5 9
I joined OUR in December 2010 with an overall goal of seeking for and promoting novel energy sources -- with scientific RIGOR including careful measurements -- without RANCOR or mocking. I have found this forum to provide a decent venue to promote rigor while -- for the most part-- avoiding mocking and rancor. That's why I'm here.
I have at my home electronics bench an ATTEN 1062C digital storage oscilloscope, a DC power supply and a selfranging multimeter, and a decent supply of transistors, resistors, inductors, capacitors, LED's, wire, etc. At the
University from which I retired after a career of physics research and teaching for over twenty years, I have access to more expensive scopes such as a Tektronix 3032 ( which will calculate MEAN power) as well as function generators, etc. I now live in the country, but I drive up to the university from time to time. IOW, I have some pretty decent
test equipment available -- and I would be glad to use to it to test YOUR novel-energy device, if you claim it meets at least the first three criteria below.
I would define a "novel energy" (NE) device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:
1. Energy from a non-conventional source. This excludes: fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3). It does not exclude: earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields. Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.
2. More power out than in (that is, COP = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU). This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated. It does imply a novel energy source. Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)
3. The observation of OU must be repeatable. A device must work every time specified conditions are met. Successful replication must be demonstrated also.
4. The power output must be capable of scaling up. (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.) To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.
5. I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide, and not controlled by some big corporation or government entity. A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.
6. If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated.
For example, if a
proton-nickel --> radioactive copper isotope production is claimed (as in a recent Bologna, Italy claim), then demonstration of copper isotope production is required. This could be done by detecting the decay products of the produced radioisotopes, which should not be difficult to measure quantitatively.
I welcome comments on the stated criteria, which I may amend as time goes on.
I am currently exploring, with others in this community of researchers the following classes of devices:
1. The Joule Thief, which is a self-resonator and typically produces higher output voltage through an LED than the supplied input voltage... hence I may call this a "Boost Resonator" (BR). I have posted numerous times on my studies of the JT or BR, and I will start a thread here on my Bench regarding this fun little circuit. I realized that the primary and feedback inductors are amenable to forming LC circuits also -- with interesting recent results....
2. Bedini motor -- a colleague who lives nearby has built one of these and finished it this week. I provided some assistance. In tests, it is not (yet) overunity... If it shows promise, I'll start a thread here on that.
3. Coupled LC circuits, including claims of "scalar waves". interesting, will let you know as these tests get underway.
I have order parts for prototypes... If I see anything
4. Would like to learn more about HHO and Steven Mark's TPU and Naudin's 2SGen...
I would like to see SOMETHING work definitively. The prizes for OU have been sitting there for too long!
I appreciate the input I have received so far at this forum, including from feynman, .99, Gibbshelmholtz, lanenal, and others, and I invite comments on my "bench" here which follow "rigor without rancor". Thanks.
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
marksnoswell
IP: [ Logged ]
marksnoswell
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
ltseung888
Position: Sr. Member Posts: 269
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
Re: Rigor without Rancor in the Search for Novel Energy Sources Reply #7 on: 2011-03-11, 21:24:01
Quote from: marksnoswell on 2011-03-11, 06:01:32 @PhysicsProf ... good attitude. We have repeatable proven results in house of extraordinary phenomenon associated with simple current loops - they will be published in the not to distant future. The only reason I mention this here is that I can attest from first hand experience just how difficult it can be to postulate, test for, validate, reproduce,
analyze and finally prove the existence of an extraordinary behavior. In the case I am referring to the difficulty is not in detection or equipment, it's in coming to terms with a behavior that lies totally outside the current accepted doctrine - or what I like to refer to as the "fashionable envelope" that mainstream academia must remain within or risk being ostracized.
I'm not worried about being fashionable nor with remaining within "mainstream academia" -- I was offered early retirement from the university despite significant awards for teaching, because my research was deemed outlandish and iconoclastic. So you see, I actually go for
the non-fashionable -- as long as the potential is high for service to humanity. (I invented a solar device that is being used world-wide...)
Quote Now having teased you with that (for which I apologize) I will comment on something that you should follow up on -- "Cold current" -but before I give some references I believe (as an ex Physics professor) you will be able to well appreciate: Considering that attempts to extract novel energy sources from ZPE are indeed novel then shouldn't we consider that the forms of energy extracted may also be novel? For example -- Blacklight power have led the world in publishing papers that support the concept that
fractional hydrogen (f/H) that can be created on demand, releasing very considerable thermal energy in the process. Blacklight power calls this f/H a Hydrino (I wont use that term as it a registered trademark of Blacklight power and belittles the generality of f/H that was theorized long before Randal Mills and Blacklight power). f/H is the result of dropping the electron in a Hydrogen atom below what was previously believed to be the ground level -- thus the atom has a fractional (of the classical zero energy state) energy level. The formation and existence of f/H is beyond reasonable contention and is something you should look into -- Dr Rossi has recently demonstrated a small reactor (at the
university of Bolonga in Italy) that produced a continuous 12Kw for 15 hours from just a few grammes of Hydrogen -- exactly the amount of energy expected the be released from dropping the Hydrogen to the first fractional energy level. This is all very exciting, however consider this... If you were able to get this new low energy form of the electron away from a f/H atom and into a conductor how would you expect it to behave? It carries essentially the same charge as an ordinary electron, but it can't directly exchange energy with ordinary electrons due to the forbidden energy jump between them. Lets call these low energy electrons "cold electrons" for now. In a circuit they
will flow without appreciable interaction with ordinary electrons -appearing to represent a superconducting behavior. A cold current of these cold electrons would behave essentially the same as an ordinary current in capacitive and inductive elements -but would not see resistances. They will flow (just as a superconducting current does) almost entirely on the surface of conductors. So far this is interesting but mostly predictable -but what behavior would these cold electrons have in semiconductor devices? in an oscilloscope? etc ... I will stop there. I think you see the point. If efforts to extract energy from novel new sources leads to novel forms
of energy, such as novel charge carriers, then the behavior of this novel energy will be new -- even if it coexists and overlaps with the behavior of normal electrical circuits. In the case of the postulated cold current then many sophisticated test methods and equipment such as oscilloscopes will not work as expected, if at all. You should read up on Ken Shoulders EVO (exotic vacuum object) work and patents. Ken is a good friend and perhaps the most rigorous scientist I have met. His experimental results are sound and have been replicated. This is distinct from his speculations on applications and theories - please don't confuse the two. This web page is a good reference
into Ken's work -there are links to his web archive at the bottom of the page http://blog.hasslberg er.com/2007/10/ken _shoulders_evos_ex otic_vacu.html As you will see, EVO's are an apparent single vacuum object that is the result of a vast number of electrons coalescing. I believe that Ken's EVO's are just one expression of a continuum of spin objects, which includes the single electron and low energy electrons in f/H at the bottom end of the scale. In recent unpublished work Ken has found indications that there may be no upper bound to the size of EVO's. I have selected just two peoples work to make a point -- it's as difficult to think in a new way as it is to make truly new discoveries. The
arguments I put forward for the essence and behaviors of cold current are just a speculation -although a speculation that is testable and based on a plausible hypothesis. ah -- enough for now. cheers Dr Mark Snoswell. CTO Chava Energy (and other nonexecutive, and not relevant, roles if you do a search.)
Good to hear from you, Mark -- thanks for the "tantalizing tidbits" and I look forward to your publications/posts of results. More power to you! You will note that I provide EXPERIMENTAL results, not much
theory at this stage (see, for example, my posts starting with #153 in this thread: http://www.overun ityresearch.com/ind ex.php? topic=717.150 )
Important first to establish the effect using experimental data. Data trumps theory every time (paraphrasing Einstein, and observing the history of science).
Now I think the claims from Italy are interesting and I have looked at their published paper. They are claiming a nuclear [proton, nickel-nucleus] reaction, producing copper including radioactive copper isotopes. Whew! quite a claim... BUT, they have not shown - please correct me if I'm wrong -- ANY
experimental data showing that they produced radioactive copper isotopes. Which should not be at all difficult to do with readily available instruments, to detect decay products of the radioactive copper isotopes produced. The next step would be to show QUANTITATIVE production of radioisotopes, commensurate with the "excess heat" they claim.
Where are the confirmatory experimental data? That's what's needed.
I tried to emphasize that in my first post on this bench, but will go back and reemphasize.
-- PS - I have added this point to my criteria in post #1
6. If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated. For
example, if a protonnickel --> radioactive copper isotope production is claimed (as in a recent Bologna, Italy claim), then demonstration of copper isotope production is required. This could be done by detecting the decay products of the produced radioisotopes, which should not be difficult to measure quantitatively.
Topic: Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit (Read 2681 times) PhysicsProf Print
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit JTSchematic1CSR.png (125.1 KB, 1803x1472 - viewed 462 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit A1vInVoutMany.png (589.9 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 442 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit A1vInVoutFew.png (575.87 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 414 times.) Last Edit: 2011-03-12, 01:29:43 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit eJinVoutDetail.png (564.95 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 381 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit COP>1 (?)PhysicsProf .png (591.66 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 365 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit eJcompare4.png (841.58 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 18 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit correctedCirJT.gif (4.23 KB, 406x358 - viewed 35 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-28, 09:53:29 by Groundloop IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit eJinVoutDetail.png (564.95 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 82 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit PinOutJT151CapFeedp99V.png (1427.46 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 31 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
gridbias
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit MOSFETcircuit2pcb.gif (150.45 KB, 499x607 - viewed 105 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit MOSFETcircuit2drawMod1.gif (8.44 KB, 349x473 - viewed 45 times.) Last Edit: 2011-05-28, 09:54:12 by Groundloop IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
Peterae
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
Dumped
------------------------------Beware the Semmelweis Reflex! Chinese proverb: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
------------------------------PinCapToL2'p56V.pdf (1582.55 KB - downloaded 29 times.) PoutCapToL2'p56V.pdf (1709.91 KB - downloaded 22 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
Last Edit: 2011-03-14, 23:09:17 by Itsu IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
Re: Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit Reply #24 on: 2011-03-15, 21:00:23
I replicated the LTJT2 as being used by PhysicsProf, but
with these differences: transistor is a BC547, toriod with L 7,2mH (both), outer d:37mm, wire:0,8mm 40 turns each. The video of this setup/measurement is here: http://www.youtube .com/watch? v=BS8XpOY3bLg
The values measured were:
Pitotal = Mean(V1*V2) = 1.291 * 0.021 = 0.027111 Pototal = Mean(V3*V2) = 1.272 * 0.021 = 0.026712
So, n = (Pototal/Pitotal)x10 0% = (0.026712/0.02711 1)x100% = 98.5%
Not bad for an initial run, but no breakthrough. I will do some
tweaking/tuning with C's.
Regards Itsu
Topic: Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit (Read 2681 times) PhysicsProf
Print
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit
ItsuSchema.png (637.92 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 272 times.) Last Edit: 2011-03-15, 23:16:28 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
------------------------------BR15Mar2011Photo.pdf (1624.46 KB - downloaded 17 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit PinPoutItsu1.png (1063.25 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 256 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
Itsu
IP: [ Logged ]
Groundloop
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit NewIdeaJT.gif (4.6 KB, 460x378 - viewed 224 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit 2JTBrSchema.png (1272.46 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 236 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
kooler
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit jt_ex001_frequencydrift.png (30.23 KB, 1005x619 - viewed 202 times.) Last Edit: 2011-03-16, 06:10:17 by feynman IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
Last Edit: 2011-03-16, 20:47:45 by MileHigh IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit 2JTBrSchema.png (1272.46 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 40 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
Last Edit: 2011-03-16, 20:41:41 by MileHigh IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
Dumped
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
Dumped
------------------------------Beware the Semmelweis Reflex! Chinese proverb: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it."
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Last Edit: 2011-03-17, 13:25:48 by exnihiloest IP: [ Logged ]
ltseung888
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit The two balls 1 Chinese.jpg (94.09 KB, 960x720 - viewed 17 times.)
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit
The two balls 1.jpg (112.86 KB, 960x720 - viewed 15 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
ltseung888
scientific debate at the bench of a Physics Professor Reply #49 on: 2011-03-17, 16:12:47
@MH,
Will you be willing to have a scientific debate at the bench of a real Physics Professor. PhysicsProf can be the moderator. All he needs to do is to
verify that every single equation I use is correct in Newtonian Mechanics.
The first debate will be on: The two tuning fork in resonance experiments done in all Physics Courses do produce a louder and longer sound experimentally. The theoretical explanation is that the first vibrating tuning fork produces a pulsing order motion of the molecules. This pulsing order can do useful work (such as exciting or pulsepushing other tuning forks). The energy to do such work comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
The other debate on the resonance of FLEET can wait. Either PhysicsProf or others will hit on the
resonance condition. Or when I get back to Hong Kong and reproduce the waveforms from my Oscilloscopes. Or after the Hong Kong Government has given every Hong Kong Citizen HK$6000 as reported on the News. (I can then buy the Oscilloscopes, etc and set up a physical bench in USA.)
We can ask PhysicsProf to set up a separate thread at his bench. Or if you prefer, use the debate forum where Harvey was the moderator. I prefer using PhysicsProf as Moderator as There will be Physics equations.
A proper scientific debate will benefit all. Amen.
Topic: Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit (Read 2681 times) EMdevices
Print
IP: [ Logged ]
acmefixer
IP: [ Logged ]
ltseung888
IP: [ Logged ]
Dumped
------------------------------Beware the Semmelweis Reflex! Chinese proverb: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the
person doing it." IP: [ Logged ]
chrisC
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
PhysicsProf
-------------------------------
Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit LidmoSlaExciter.png (614.88 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 216 times.)
IP: [ Logged ]
ltseung888
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
chrisC
IP: [ Logged ]
duff
IP: [ Logged ]
poynt99
IP: [ Logged ]
duff
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
acmefixer
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
PhysicsProf
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
feynman
IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
Dumped
MileHigh
IP: [ Logged ]
GibbsHelmholtz
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-03-18, 22:12:18
I will help him understand it if he doesn't know. MileHigh
I've seen you emphasized the important of how an inductor works for a while. I'm still much curious on how it works. You must have put a lot of thoughts into it. I'd like to know your thinking. This is how I think it works
( not much of a few paragraphs... probably why I always get bad grades on essays ).
We put x amount of energy into an inductor call it 1/2 Li^2 . On discharge, we gain 1/2 Li^2.
Thanks
Divine Revelation
Lawrence Tseung on March 8, 2011 Email: ltseung@hotmail.com
What is a scientific discovery? What is a Divine Revelation? How would one classify an earth-shaking invention as a scientific discovery or as a Divine Revelation?
, ,
Let us consider a real example of today. Let us look at the simple tuning fork invented in the seventeenth century. The tuning fork has been and is still used everyday by musicians to tune their musical instruments. In high school physics, the tuning fork resonance experiment is standard. Two identical tuning forks on resonance boxes are placed close to each other. The first tuning fork is struck and the second tuning fork will pick up the vibration. The resulting sound will be louder and last longer.
Figure 1. Tuning Fork on a Resonance Box.
When we strike the first tuning fork, other identical tuning forks nearby go into sympathetic vibrations. Resulting sound is louder and last longer. Where does the extra energy come from?
I looked at the phenomenon and prayed for Divine Revelations. The Divine Revelation came as a simple question. Instead of just two tuning forks on resonance boxes, if one puts a third, fourth,nth identical tuning forks, what will happen? Will the resulting sound be louder and last even longer? If so, where does the extra energy come from?
, N ,
The correct answer is - the extra energy must come from the surrounding air. The moving molecules travelling towards the approaching tuning fork will bounce back with a higher velocity. The moving molecules travelling towards the receding tuning fork will bounce back with a lower velocity.
---, , ,, ,
This means that we are actually bringing-in energy from still air. Once we understood that the kinetic energy of air could be brought-in at resonance, we asked the related question can electrical (LCR) resonance bring-in the electromagnetic energy? The expected answer is YES. The detailed description can be found in the Energetic Forum discussions (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bringenergy-theory.html).
, ---(LCR), --- Energetic Forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-leetseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory.html)
To me, the Miracle is still being revealed. It is like the Miracle when Jesus turned water to wine. Or when he fed thousands with two fishes and five pieces of bread. I am enjoying the feast and all of you can join in. There is plenty for all. I am just an instrument in this Miracle. The Miracle Worker is the Almighty. Divine Revelation is to benefit all not just a few privileged elite. Amen.
, ---
Topic: Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit (Read 2681 times) PhysicsProf
Print
Quote from: slayer007 on 2011-04-02, 17:49:55 Hello PhysicsProf The led should be from the emitter to the base through a 1n4148
diode. The L1 coil is is only one layer with the one end free for the AV plug or FL tubes. Once this is started you can remove the base resistor.
Hello, Slayer007 and welcome! With your suggestions, I'll have to revisit this fascinating little circuit.
I should note that I will be traveling in just a couple of days to see friends and family in the midwest. Therefore my posts here will be limited for a couple of weeks. But I will try to keep up from motels, etc.
Topic: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ? (Read 8598 times)
JouleSeeker

Jr. Member Posts: 78
PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

on: May 20, 2011, 05:21:55 AM
Mostly I post at OUResearch, for the last several months, would like to call attention to new thread there on my bench (PhysicsProf -- emeritus Professor of Physics, strong electronics background). I invite replications -- and terse/technical comments only, please. I enjoy this forum and the enthusiasm. I developed a straightforward 1transistor circuit -- build is fun, rather easy, and solid-state. Enjoy. Good results so far; see: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=853.msg14112#msg14112
photKraYPin.jpg (72.47 KB, 420x318 - viewed 1824 times.)

Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 05:56:56 PM by hartiberlin Logged
Free Energy
PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
on: May 20, 2011, 05:21:55 AM
Sponsored links:
JouleSeeker

Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise

Reply #1 on: May 21, 2011, 02:47:52 AM
To entice you with a little data -- see attached schematic for the sj1 device and DATA from a Tek 3032B which shows the input power (left, red waveform) and output power (right red waveform). Pin ~ 10 mW , Pout ~ 79 mW per the MATH on the Tek 3032. (Mean V(t)*I(t)). You can do the math from there . For more info, ask, or go over to the OUResearch.com forum (link in post#1 above). Would like to see someone replicate and test this puppy! No magnets to buy or bearings... PS -- I spoke to Carmen Muller of Muller Power Co. today. Found her articulate and sharp. I think she ended up asking me more questions than I asked her... good conversation. Busy person these days. (Both of us actually.)
Kra18MayCf.png (314.64 KB, 1280x800 - viewed 1780 times.)
jones.jpg (40.19 KB, 789x475 - viewed 1663 times.)

Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 05:55:05 PM by hartiberlin Logged
Free Energy
Reply #1 on: May 21, 2011, 02:47:52 AM
k4zep

Sr. Member Posts: 411

Reply #2 on: May 28, 2011, 04:34:25 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 21, 2011, 02:47:52 AM To entice you with a little data -- see attached schematic for the sj1 device and DATA from a Tek 3032B which shows the input power (left, red waveform) and output power (right red waveform). Pin ~ 10 mW , Pout ~ 79 mW . per the MATH on the Tek 3032. (Mean V(t)*I(t)). You can do the math from there
For more info, ask, or go over to the OUResearch.com forum (link in post#1 above). Would like to see someone replicate and test this puppy! No magnets to buy or bearings... PS -- I spoke to Carmen Muller of Muller Power Co. today. Found her articulate and sharp. I think she ended up asking me more questions than I asked her... good conversation. Busy person these days. (Both of us actually.)
Good Morning Dr. Jones, Following with interest, up to my eyeballs in RomeroUK motor (bearings and magnets!), but a question. Have you tested or do you think this circuit can operate at AF frequencies, in the range of 1 to 3 kHz with larger inductors/cap., with the same ratio of input to output? Going on vacation for a week, soon as I get back, can build no problem and have a good scope to check it also. Respectfully, Ben K4ZEP
Logged
hartiberlin

Administrator Hero Member Posts: 6713 Stefan Hartmann, Moderator of overunity.com forum

Reply #3 on: May 28, 2011, 05:02:28 PM
Looks great Prof. Jones. Here are the 2 video Sterling D. Allan took of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7tj5VT_lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fGKtmp8Cc
Now we need some replications and some good measurements and a scale up, so we can extract usable power from it. Many thanks. Regards, Stefan.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #3 on: May 28, 2011, 05:02:28 PM
Omega_0

Sr. Member Posts: 417 Omega The One !

Reply #4 on: May 28, 2011, 05:06:24 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 21, 2011, 02:47:52 AM To entice you with a little data -- see attached schematic for the sj1 device and DATA from a Tek 3032B which shows the input power (left, red waveform) and output power (right red waveform). Pin ~ 10 mW , Pout ~ 79 mW . per the MATH on the Tek 3032. (Mean V(t)*I(t)). You can do the math from there
Hi, Interesting. Would you like to provide some raw data like: Instantaneous values captured from scope for say 1 sec. Voltages : Vin, Vout [with probe factor] Currents : Vin, Vout [with Rin and Rout or any sense resistors values along with their tolerances (very imp)]
(Or if you used current probes then Iin and Iout] It will be nice if these are taken at the same time, else within a few seconds. Data can be in excel or csv. (6 decimal points min) Also, the connections points of probes. I'm sorry I'm asking you to take this trouble as I have a low end scope (max 1 MHz). Posting this data will benefit all of us poor fellows.
Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 05:42:08 PM by Omega_0 Logged
hartiberlin


Reply #5 on: May 28, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
Here is some critique of the circuit I found on the Peswiki page by the user Motor Guy: Motor Guy: The circuit has huge stray inductances, and the transistor is not decoupled. That causes the transistor to oscillate horribly each time it starts to conduct substantial current. In the video the scope shows oscillations in the 100MHz range that good layout and decoupling of the transistor would eliminate. That 100MHz easily couples into the high impedance passive oscilloscope probe making the current readings completely erroneous. You can see those oscillations begin to disappear when he adjusts the rheostat he inserted into the low side of the left hand circuit loop. In the video Dr. Jones says that he has had a version running delivering 900mW out for 4mW in. 900mW is calculated by the oscilloscope. 900mW does not seem possible with these components. For his load that is no less than 5K Ohms, 900mW would mean more than 60V RMS at the transistor emitter, and
peak voltages of around 100V. The MPS2222A CE breakdown voltage is only 40V. 900mW would also make the rheostat he has in series with his LED very hot. Dr. Jones needs to clean-up his circuit and his probes. For the circuit, using a PCB with a solid ground layer would be best. If he doesn't want to do that, he can probably do adequately by moving the transistor very close to the V+/Vstrip of that EZ Circuit proto board, and adding a 0.1uF capacitor from the 2222A collector to V- using leads cut as short as possible. Once he cleans the circuit and the instrumentation up, he will find it is an ordinary oscillator that gets all of its power from the battery. Motor Guy: This is a nice demonstration of measurement error based delusion. Stray circuit and scope probe inductance cause invalid measurements. Clean-up the measurements and the illusion of over-unity will disappear. First, get rid of the huge pick-up loop formed by the scope probes' 6" ground clips. This can be done by placing a 0.1uF capacitor across the battery leads where they connect to the board, and using a coaxial probe connection at that point. The coaxial connection can be arranged by either cutting the probe off an old scope probe, or using a coaxial cable with a BNC at both ends and a BNC connector in series with a 50 Ohm resistor soldered right at the capacitor that is across the battery connection to the rest of the circuit. The 50 Ohm resistor is needed to suppress ringing in the coaxial cable. Second, suppress HF current flowing between the scope body and the circuit by clipping a bunch of those clamp-on ferrite EMC filters over each of the scope probe cables. Professor Jones can buy the clamp-on ferrites at Radio Shack for a few dollars each. The last problem that I see is that his circuit common should be defined as the negative terminal of the battery, not the bottom of the current viewing resistor. The reason for this is that the stray inductance of the resistor and wiring to the battery creates spikes that throw the measurements off. By setting the common at the bottom of the battery a coaxial probe can be soldered across the resistor right at the resistor body. Lead length between the resistor body and the negative side of the battery pack connection where it is picked up by the capacitor and voltage monitoring probe common must be kept to a minimum. If Professor Jones is sincere, he will clean-up his measurements and report the results. He can do so without spending more than $100. and a few hours of time.
Motor Guy: Just to add that iit is important to keep the 0.1uF capacitor leads as short as possible. If Professor Jones has a good soldering iron, he can buy 1206 size surface mount parts for both the capacitor and the current viewing resistor. A 1206 resistor will handle 1/4 W, and while reasonably small, 1206 parts are still reasonably easy to solder with a fine soldering tip without using a magnifier. Motor Guy: One other minor thing I forgot to say: When the common is defined as the negative terminal of the battery the polarity of the sensed voltage will be opposite the current flow. Be sure to invert the channel to get the right polarity. The Tek scope can do that, and I'm pretty sure the ATTEN scope can as well. Also as with the voltage probe coax the coax from the current viewing resistor should have a series 50 Ohm resistor right at the end.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #5 on: May 28, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
Sponsored links:
hartiberlin


Reply #6 on: May 28, 2011, 05:44:33 PM
Here are again the circuit and a few other pics about it:
steven_jones_joule_thief_circuit.jpg (18.34 KB, 450x363 - viewed 1639 times.)
BifilarWindingHowTo.jpg (66.76 KB, 429x624 - viewed 1629 times.)
FEosc.jpg (109.53 KB, 1117x891 - viewed 1633 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #6 on: May 28, 2011, 05:44:33 PM
Omega_0


Reply #7 on: May 28, 2011, 06:09:05 PM
Never trust the spiky waveforms, they can confuse even the most sophisticated instruments. Best way to measure them is to rectify them and measure the DC instead. Of course there will be some loss; but at 8x output it will not be an
issue. In this circuit even the input is spiky, which means double trouble.Right now I can't think of any way to measure the input reliably. To protect the probes from radiation, shield the circuit by placing it in a metal box and running long thick wire to the rectifier placed far away. Then there is the issue of scope ground. The scope probes have common ground and when you connect them at the same time to an ungrounded circuit, results become unpredictable. If you get a good DC power out of it, its best to pulse it back into the input and get rid of scopes and meters. That will be the final test.....
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #7 on: May 28, 2011, 06:09:05 PM
xee2

Hero Member Posts: 1402
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

Reply #8 on: May 28, 2011, 06:24:32 PM
@ JouleSeeker I am sorry if I misunderstood how you are measuring the output power. But how can you measure the whole cycle using a scope? The voltage on the scope is only valid at one instant of time and changes over the cycle. This is how I measure efficiency > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smOiVmKv9f8
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #8 on: May 28, 2011, 06:24:32 PM
JouleSeeker


Reply #9 on: May 28, 2011, 07:00:54 PM
Appreciate the comments and questions. We have some family activities this weekend, but will have more time to respond later today and tomorrow.
Quote from: k4zep on May 28, 2011, 04:34:25 PM Good Morning Dr. Jones, Following with interest, up to my eyeballs in RomeroUK motor (bearings and magnets!), but a question. Have you tested or do you think this circuit can operate at AF frequencies, in the range of 1 to 3 kHz with larger inductors/cap., with the same ratio of input to output? Going on vacation for a week, soon as I get back, can build no problem and have a good scope to check it also. Respectfully, Ben K4ZEP
Right -- as you increase the Lb and Cb, the frequency of the tank circuit will go down. I have not gone below about 500 KHz with this circuit, but I think your idea is a good one. Please do try this, and let us know your results.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #9 on: May 28, 2011, 07:00:54 PM
Sponsored links:
JouleSeeker


Reply #10 on: May 28, 2011, 07:06:24 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 28, 2011, 05:02:28 PM Looks great Prof. Jones. Here are the 2 video Sterling D. Allan took of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7tj5VT_lw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fGKtmp8Cc
Now we need some replications and some good measurements and a scale up, so we can extract usable power from it. Many thanks. Regards, Stefan.
Thanks, Stefan -- I totally agree with the need for "replications and some good measurements and a scale up". I hope that came across in the vids, but those were unrehearsed and rather impromptu, and I may have not made clear enough the need for replications and further checking. ' I totally agree that those are needed! will return later.)
Logged
(Gotta run for a while now with family;
Free Energy
Reply #10 on: May 28, 2011, 07:06:24 PM
mscoffman


Reply #11 on: May 28, 2011, 09:05:13 PM
I agree with people who indicate that instrumentation - once you've think you've seen evidence of overunity energy - should be completely removed from the experiment. It' is extremely easy to substitute RC time constants to integrate the amount of DC energy from rectified current that will rid power calculation of any HF signal edge effects and cable reflections. Use diodes that operate with relatively high efficiency. For example rather than running the oscillator directly from a battery, run it on a capacitor that get charged from the battery via an NE555 switch that will cause the circuit oscillations to run for a fixed time then be reset to fixed voltage - and imply energy from load on the RC time constant. Then look at output energy collected on the capacitors as a function of the RC time constant. Look at comparative Hi vs Lo voltage. The R and C can be then measured with precision statically. I think some of the things that happen with Steorn, show that you can't really trust power measurements of HF pulses especially when your instrumentation becomes part of circuit operation. You may be pitting the quality of the signal processing against the MPS2222 transistors ability to detect the scopes input impedance. Don't pull the old sophomoric BS about how expensive instruments must give correct results no matter how they are used. Be ready to cross check each result, then accept what your results indicate. :S:MarkSCoffman
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #11 on: May 28, 2011, 09:05:13 PM
hartiberlin


Reply #12 on: May 29, 2011, 01:38:46 AM
Here is a replication video from User itsusable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4xMeZ_41Y Seems it is not so easy to measure the output power in his case. Regards, Stefan.
Logged
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Reply #13 on: May 29, 2011, 01:54:32 AM
Only one way to show this is OU, is to self-power then power a load if possible. Measuring this type of wave form is always going to be a problem even with the most sophisticated equipment. If it self Powers itself its OU. Its easy to get ones hopes up and then be let down by a silly measurement error. I have done it before. All the Best Professor and keep up the good work. On some models of the Tektronix, it does state in the manual that only Sinusoidal Wave form Measurements are measured with accuracy. Does this scope state that these Spiky Wave Forms are measured correctly? Being that
this circuit is simple, I will build it and try the Self Powering test. All the Best Chris
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #13 on: May 29, 2011, 01:54:32 AM
wopwops

New_User Posts: 15

Reply #14 on: May 29, 2011, 03:14:25 AM
Quote Only one way to show this is OU, is to self-power then power a load if possible.
It's worth repeating!

hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Reply #15 on: May 29, 2011, 03:30:54 AM
Quote from: wopwops on May 29, 2011, 03:14:25 AM It's worth repeating!
Yes Yes Yes, completely agree, I am not shooting it down. I dont dis-miss
anything like this. Untill proven not Overunity, it is worthy of great study. The output needs to be useable, and preferably to power itself. Some devices I have built measure OU but as soon as you change the output Load things change and everything goes hay-wire. Output Load needs to be able to be changed without changing the running characteristics of the machine. All I am saying is dont trust the meters. They are not always right in my experience. All the best Chris
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #15 on: May 29, 2011, 03:30:54 AM
Sponsored links:
Groundloop

TPU-Elite Hero Member Posts: 1279

Reply #16 on: May 29, 2011, 05:39:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kdve9sKrxQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ntFxscwi00
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #16 on: May 29, 2011, 05:39:41 AM
JouleSeeker

Jr. Member
Posts: 78

Reply #17 on: May 29, 2011, 06:26:24 AM
Quote from: mscoffman on May 28, 2011, 09:05:13 PM I agree with people who indicate that instrumentation - once you've think you've seen evidence of overunity energy - should be completely removed from the experiment. It' is extremely easy to substitute RC time constants to integrate the amount of DC energy from rectified current that will rid power calculation of any HF signal edge effects and cable reflections. Use diodes that operate with relatively high efficiency. For example rather than running the oscillator directly from a battery, run it on a capacitor that get charged from the battery via an NE555 switch that will cause the circuit oscillations to run for a fixed time then be reset to fixed voltage - and imply energy from load on the RC time constant. Then look at output energy collected on the capacitors as a function of the RC time constant. Look at comparative Hi vs Lo voltage. The R and C can be then measured with precision statically. I think some of the things that happen with Steorn, show that you can't really trust power measurements of HF pulses especially when your instrumentation becomes part of circuit operation. You may be pitting the quality of the signal processing against the MPS2222 transistors ability to detect the scopes input impedance. Don't pull the old sophomoric BS about how expensive instruments must give correct results no matter how they are used. Be ready to cross check each result, then accept what your results indicate. :S:MarkSCoffman
I agree also. That is precisely why I stated in the video that I am now working on using an input capacitor instead of battery power, and output capacitor(s) instead of Rout -- to collect the output energy. I have begun tests of this type. The problems are that the input cap does not hold charge particularly well (looking for less leaky caps), but more importantly, the voltage of the input cap varies -- and the efficiency I have found varies with variation in the input voltage. I'm working on a higher capacitance input cap so that the input Voltage stays close to the same throughout the run. I realize there are limits to the oscilloscope method outlined and used, and that is why I am trying other methods as well. Another method I've started is to compare the temperature rise in the two matched (1-ohm) CSR's. If indeed there is more current circulating in the output leg of the circuit, that resistor CSR(out) should show a greater temp rise than CSR(in). That is the simplest non-oscilloscope test I have thought of so far...
Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 07:24:03 AM by JouleSeeker Logged
JouleSeeker


Reply #18 on: May 29, 2011, 06:32:19 AM
Quote from: Groundloop on May 29, 2011, 05:39:41 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kdve9sKrxQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ntFxscwi00
In these circuits, while there is similarity (which I have already acknowledged), the diode points the opposite direction, the wrong way, from the "Boost Resonator" = "sj1" circuit. Also, I've added variable resistors as explained earlier, to permit circuit "tuning."
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #18 on: May 29, 2011, 06:32:19 AM
JouleSeeker


Reply #19 on: May 29, 2011, 06:38:05 AM
Quote from: Omega_0 on May 28, 2011, 06:09:05 PM Never trust the spiky waveforms, they can confuse even the most sophisticated instruments. Best way to measure them is to rectify them and measure the DC instead. Of course there will be some loss; but at 8x output it will not be an issue. In this circuit even the input is spiky, which means double trouble.Right now I can't think of any way to measure the input reliably. To protect the probes from radiation, shield the circuit by placing it in a metal box and running long thick wire to the rectifier placed far away. Then there is the issue of scope ground. The scope probes have common ground and when you connect them at the same time to an ungrounded circuit, results become unpredictable. If you get a good DC power out of it, its best to pulse it back into the input and get rid of scopes and meters. That will be the final test.....
@OmegaO -- See my post above regarding alternative power measurements that I'm pursuing, also mentioned in the vid, not using oscilloscopes. ( I'm agreeing with you that scope methods have limits.) @MotorGuy -- "Motor Guy: The circuit has huge stray inductances, and the transistor is not decoupled. " Same response -- and again, my pursuit of alternative methods of measurement to check the results was already mentioned in the vid.
Logged
Mk1


Reply #20 on: May 29, 2011, 06:39:29 AM
@Joule seeker I see one more improvement that could be done , Variable cap to tune the Freq .
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #20 on: May 29, 2011, 06:39:29 AM
Sponsored links:
JouleSeeker


Reply #21 on: May 29, 2011, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Mk1 on May 29, 2011, 06:39:29 AM @Joule seeker I see one more improvement that could be done , Variable cap to tune the Freq .
Appreciated and noted. Lots of opportunities for those "playing" with this circuit. I'm most interested at the moment in double and triple-checking the Pout/Pin results.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #21 on: May 29, 2011, 06:45:46 AM
JouleSeeker


Reply #22 on: May 29, 2011, 06:51:16 AM
Quote from: xee2 on May 28, 2011, 06:24:32 PM @ JouleSeeker I am sorry if I misunderstood how you are measuring the output power. But how can you measure the whole cycle using a scope? The voltage on the scope is only valid at one instant of time and changes over the cycle. This is how I measure efficiency > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smOiVmKv9f8
I take a time window (2useconds typically) in which there are many cycles, to acquire a good value for the Mean power, both for input and output power. Let me explain further: the Tek 3032 math multiply function allows me to get INSTANTANEOUS power by multiplying for me Vin (t) * Iin (t) -- and this power waveform is plotted (red waveforms above). Then the MEAN is extracted over numerous cycles. Same for Output Power. Again, I'm seeking non-oscilloscope methods to triple-check the Pout/Pin observations. Thanks Kee2 -- I followed your posts on the JouleRinger especially, months ago, which inspired developments of this circuit.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #22 on: May 29, 2011, 06:51:16 AM
JouleSeeker


Reply #23 on: May 29, 2011, 07:01:16 AM
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 29, 2011, 01:38:46 AM Here is a replication video from User itsusable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4xMeZ_41Y Seems it is not so easy to measure the output power in his case. Regards, Stefan.
I appreciate Itsu's efforts (vid). VERY true -- "it is not so easy to measure the output power in his case." Again the importance of non-scope methods to check and verify. @hyiq:
Quote Only one way to show this is OU, is to self-power then power a load if possible. Measuring this type of wave form is always going to be a problem even with the most sophisticated equipment. If it self Powers itself its OU. Its easy to get ones hopes up and then be let down by a silly measurement error. I have done it before. All the Best Professor and keep up the good work.
Self-powering is a great method and demonstration, certainly. The problem here (so far) is that the output power has a substantial AC component to rectify, also the output voltage (@ approx 7 volts using DVM, across 9.7Kohm Rout ) is larger than I like for the input Voltage.
Yes, I would like to see a self-running device, but I do not think this is the ONLY method of verification. See alt methods I'm pursuing (discussed briefly above).
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #23 on: May 29, 2011, 07:01:16 AM
Mk1


Reply #24 on: May 29, 2011, 08:33:04 AM
@Joule seeker Maybe it is time to recycle the OU term , maybe recycling energy could be a better greener image , for over efficiency circuits.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #24 on: May 29, 2011, 08:33:04 AM
Sponsored links:
Omega_0


Reply #25 on: May 29, 2011, 09:38:02 AM
Prof Jones, You are indeed doing a work of great value and I respect your open-mindedness and understanding. I hope something interesting will come out of this circuit. If you seriously consider heat measurements then you will need a high end calorimeter. It needs to be scaled up into watts range to be above error margins. The heat is not much in this version but the good thing with calorimetry is that you can leave it running for hours and have a cumulative effect. It is the final measurement for any OU setup. I have another suggestions regarding measuring spiked AC besides the rectifier/filter method. There are true RMS meters that measure the true RMS voltages and are independent of waveform. (There is a very fine and accurate resistance inside them which heats up and its temperature is directly mapped into volts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_RMS_converter PS: I have no idea about their bandwidth ratings
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #25 on: May 29, 2011, 09:38:02 AM
Pirate88179

Moderator Hero Member Posts: 5253 Attempting to know the unknown

Reply #26 on: May 29, 2011, 12:48:37 PM
Dr. Jones: I am watching your experiments and can't wait to see what happens next. Best of luck to you sir.
Bill
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #26 on: May 29, 2011, 12:48:37 PM
JouleSeeker


Reply #27 on: May 29, 2011, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: Omega_0 on May 29, 2011, 09:38:02 AM Prof Jones, You are indeed doing a work of great value and I respect your open-mindedness and understanding. I hope something interesting will come out of this circuit. If you seriously consider heat measurements then you will need a high end calorimeter. It needs to be scaled up into watts range to be above error margins. The heat is not much in this version but the good thing with calorimetry is that you can leave it running for hours and have a cumulative effect. It is the final measurement for any OU setup. ...
Hmmm... I may have access to a high-end calorimeter. But I'm trying to figure out just how one would use it. Perhaps put the entire device in the calorimeter -- except for the output leg of the circuit (Diode + resistor Ro). The CSR resistors are superfluous in this measurement method and are removed. Measure the heat-rise for this "input" portion of the DUT as total Pin, using the calorimeter. Then place the isolated output leg of the device in the calorimeter and measure the heat-rise separately, as total Pout. Does this make sense? I'm wondering where to put the toroid itself, in the
input or output leg? Perhaps that won't make much difference... Thanks for the encouragement, also @Pirate.
Logged
DrStiffler


Reply #28 on: May 29, 2011, 04:45:47 PM
With the potential of 900mW as stated in the PW article, I see no reason why a high end calorimeter would be required, although one used in bio work would dispel any negative feed back on the quality and accuracy. Again if capable of 900mW it can be done with a home build unit, foam and 10 to 20mL of water and a good indicator. Of course you need to setup a calibration protocol. As far as what to put in the unit here IMHO are the possibilities. 1)Entire unit exclusive of the 1ohms unit in series with your power rail. Under this condition a number of possible results can be seen; a) The heat in the unit is below what the input measurement shows should be present, this would indicate one or more components are cooling, most likely the transistor as this is the most probable source. b) The heat indicated is above what is shown to be the input. c) The input and output are for all practical purpose equal (~100% eff.). 2) If cooling is seen a tedious protocol of component isolation is then presented and would take considerable work and circuit/component splitting to arrive at an answer. 3) The unit presents heat above input, this would be the most desirable and I'm sure you understand why. Unless you want to keep the forums busy and people trying replications that do not have the required test equipment I might suggest this would be a great idea to find a calorimeter. Once you are assured of you digital reading as compared to the actual heat measurement them replicators can have a base line to work from.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #28 on: May 29, 2011, 04:45:47 PM
JouleSeeker


Reply #29 on: May 29, 2011, 04:47:11 PM
Good to hear from you, Dr. Stiffler.

Quote Unless you want to keep the forums busy and people trying replications that do not have the required test equipment I might suggest this would be a great idea to find a calorimeter.
OK -- more pondering. The simplest experimental test I can think of using a calorimeter -- place the ENTIRE circuit in a calorimeter with the only source of energy being a capacitor (say 10F) in place of the battery. The available energy Ein is known from Ein = 1/2 CV**2. Then turn the device on (inside the calorimeter) and let it run. Calculate the total energy OUTPUT Eout using the calorimeter. n = Eout / Ein.
DrStiffler


Reply #30 on: May 29, 2011, 04:55:42 PM
Doctor,
correct me if I am wrong, but is this proposed method a can of worms, wanting for a better way of saying it. First the transistor will no work in a linear way as the voltage on the cap decrease and what ever is the process taking place, I wonder if it can continue under this condition. Also the transistor will cutoff once the cap drops below Vbe, therefore you need to subtract that energy from the equation provided this would work.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #30 on: May 29, 2011, 04:55:42 PM
Sponsored links:
Pirate88179


Reply #31 on: May 29, 2011, 05:30:36 PM
Dr. Stiffler: Off topic but it is good to see you posting here once again. I am following your work also and it is amazing. I hope that you are well. Bill
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #31 on: May 29, 2011, 05:30:36 PM
DrStiffler


Reply #32 on: May 29, 2011, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 29, 2011, 05:30:36 PM Dr. Stiffler: Off topic but it is good to see you posting here once again. I am following your work also and it is amazing. I hope that you are well. Bill
Bill, long time indeed. Well I'm not back really, in my sadistic wisdom I thought I could save ton of work for people and the Doctor as you are well aware I have over the years taken much tar/feathers and maybe I could use some of that experience to save someone else. The health is fair for 69, some knee trouble, pulled mussel now and then and of course the eyes are not what they should be, guess looking at all those bright white LED's is not good for you. Maybe just age again. No I have no intention of sticking around, tons of work with the new self running battery charger boards.
Logged
xee2

Reply #33 on: May 29, 2011, 05:45:57 PM
This circuit was built and tested. It does not run forever because the Joule thief circuit used is not over unity. But, if someone has a Joule thief circuit that is over unity they can use this technique to feedback output to input so that the circuit will run forever.
self-running Joule thief.jpg (67.82 KB, 768x576 - viewed 770 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #33 on: May 29, 2011, 05:45:57 PM
Omega_0


Reply #34 on: May 29, 2011, 07:06:13 PM
A supercap can work if you let it discharge only up to say 90% of peak voltage and if it produces a measurable heat safely above the noise floor. Discharge from 100% to 90% can be assumed as linear. Everything in this circuit, including the battery will dissipate heat. You can take a known battery and discharge it into a load, first without the circuit then with the circuit in between the battery and the load. Repeat 10x and plot the temperature data. If you suspect some component is cooling down and causing the excess energy, while calorimeter measures a zero net change, you will have to isolate that component and take readings again. This calorimetry thing is tedious and raw way, a pain , thats why no one does it but a lot can be learnt. I suggest going the way of rectifier and/or true rms meters first to gain some confidence. I hope replicators will start popping up in meantime.
Logged
JouleSeeker


Reply #35 on: May 29, 2011, 10:47:33 PM
Quote from: DrStiffler on May 29, 2011, 05:37:35 PM Bill, long time indeed. Well I'm not back really, in my sadistic wisdom I thought I could save ton of work for people
and the Doctor as you are well aware I have over the years taken much tar/feathers and maybe I could use some of that experience to save someone else. The health is fair for 69, some knee trouble, pulled mussel good for you. Maybe just age again. No I have no intention of sticking around, tons of work with the new self running battery charger boards. now and then and of course
the eyes are not what they should be, guess looking at all those bright white LED's is not
Thanks, Dr. I've had my share of tar & feathers, mostly from other research, so I appreciate what you're saying. Someone -- where are Dr Stiffler's "new self running battery charger boards"? I'd like to learn about various methods. Thanks Omega -- I was thinking along the same lines: "A supercap can work if you let it discharge only up to say 90% of peak voltage and if it produces a measurable heat safely above the noise floor. Discharge from 100% to 90% can be assumed as linear." It should be straightforward to have tiny wires going into the calorimeter -- to turn the DUT on and off. We measure how long it takes for the supercap to go from 100% to about 90%, then simply let the DUT run that amount of time INSIDE -- and let the calorimeter do the Eout measurement. Looking at the self-running option as well. I agree with several of you that that is the "gold standard" for new energy. (I agree Mk that "OU" carries a lot of baggage and that we might do well as a community to find a new name. "Novel EM energy"? Anomalous energy? Green energy? ) Thanks again for comments.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #35 on: May 29, 2011, 10:47:33 PM
Sponsored links:
DrStiffler


Reply #36 on: May 29, 2011, 11:32:19 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 10:47:33 PM Thanks, Dr. I've had my share of tar & feathers, mostly from other research, so I appreciate what you're saying. Someone -- where are Dr Stiffler's "new self running battery charger boards"? I'd like to learn about various methods. Thanks Omega -- I was thinking along the same lines: "A supercap can work if you let it discharge only up to say 90% of peak voltage and if it produces a measurable heat safely above the noise floor. Discharge from 100% to 90% can be assumed as linear." It should be straightforward to have tiny wires going into the calorimeter -- to turn the DUT on and off. We measure how long it takes for the supercap to go from 100% to about 90%, then simply let the DUT run that amount of time INSIDE -- and let the calorimeter do the Eout measurement. Looking at the self-running option as well. I agree with several of you that that is the "gold standard" for new energy. (I agree Mk that "OU" carries a lot of baggage and that we might do well as a community to find a new name. energy? Green energy? ) Thanks again for comments. "Novel EM energy"? Anomalous
Quote
Someone -- where are Dr Stiffler's "new self running battery charger boards"? I'd like to learn about various methods.
The layout and functionality are currently being tested, status info can be found in the comments section of my web page. The unit will be available to academics only through p.o. from institutions. Therefore upon release it appears you could secure one.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #36 on: May 29, 2011, 11:32:19 PM
NerzhDishual


Reply #37 on: May 30, 2011, 12:31:17 AM
Hi OU crowd, Thanks to Dr. Steven E. Jones. Should more 'official' scientists be on our side that the alleged 'energy crisis' will be over. Actually, I'm not a scientist and I just wanted to ask a silly question: is this set up able to measure any COP/Efficiency ? Very Best
Ou_Measurement.jpg (27.01 KB, 640x346 - viewed 557 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #37 on: May 30, 2011, 12:31:17 AM
xee2


Reply #38 on: May 30, 2011, 02:44:01 AM
Quote from: NerzhDishual on May 30, 2011, 12:31:17 AM is this set up able to measure any COP/Efficiency ?
Yes. See this example > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smOiVmKv9f8 Note that since the output is pulses, a capacitor is needed to sum the energy of the pulses. And a diode is needed to prevent capacitor discharging back through transistor when it turns on. Each pulse adds energy to the capacitor and increases its voltage until the capacitor input power and output power are
equal. If the Joule thief output is AC (not normal for a Joule thief), then a full wave rectifier should be used instead of the diode.
Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 03:19:20 AM by xee2 Logged
Free Energy
Reply #38 on: May 30, 2011, 02:44:01 AM
NerzhDishual


Reply #39 on: May 30, 2011, 02:59:12 AM
@Xee2 OK. Thanks for answering. Thanks for the vid. I do like the assembly. I often use this kinda 'layout' too. Very Best
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #39 on: May 30, 2011, 02:59:12 AM
Sponsored links:
JouleSeeker


Reply #40 on: May 30, 2011, 04:14:32 AM
Quote from: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 02:44:01 AM Yes. See this example > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smOiVmKv9f8 Note that since the output is pulses, a capacitor is needed to sum the energy of the pulses. And a diode is needed to prevent capacitor discharging back through transistor when it turns on. Each pulse adds energy to the capacitor and increases its voltage until the capacitor input power and output power are equal. If the Joule thief output is AC (not normal for a Joule thief), then a full wave rectifier should be used instead of the diode.
If you will look at the input Power waveform from the Tek 3032 (in my early posts), you will see that the instantaneous Pin has a large AC component. The Tek provides V(t) * I(t), then over numerous cycles will calculate the mean input power. I trust this method much more than using a DVM to measure I (meter) * V (battery), given the AC component in the input power. Indeed, measuring the input power is challenging, given the remarkable AC component observed... hence the suggestion to use a cap for the input in lieu of a battery. Or a calorimeter for the measurements. I'm looking for a capacitor that does not "leak" appreciably, something in the 0.5 F range would be great.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #40 on: May 30, 2011, 04:14:32 AM
xee2


Reply #41 on: May 30, 2011, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 04:14:32 AM If you will look at the input Power waveform from the Tek 3032 (in my early posts), you will see that the instantaneous Pin has a large AC component. The Tek provides V(t) * I(t), then over numerous cycles will calculate the mean input power. I trust this method much more than using a DVM to measure I (meter) * V (battery), given the AC component in the input power. Indeed, measuring the input power is challenging, given the remarkable AC component observed... hence the suggestion to use a cap for the input in lieu of a battery. Or a calorimeter for the measurements. I'm looking for a capacitor that does not "leak" appreciably, something in the 0.5 F range would be great.
Yes this is true. I originally put a large capacitor between ground and the output of the amp meter to filter the noise. But I have found that all of my digital meters do a good job of computing the average current even with these pulses so I stopped adding the capacitor. All of my meters seem to give about the same reading without the capacitor as with it. However, this may not be true for all meters, so adding a large capacitor may help in some cases. I am also assuming that there is generally no need to get a super-exact measurement in order to determine if over unit exits, I have yet to find a device that was even close. If your Tek meter is giving you 8 times more output power than in I think you should also try another method of testing since that is rather suspicious. I am sure that is what you told you students when they came up with questionable results. I hope I do not seem too negative, I really do have an open mind. That is why I examine devices claiming over unity. However, after so many claims turn out to
be wrong I guess I do get a bit suspicious when someone claims such a large COP.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #41 on: May 30, 2011, 05:30:54 AM
NerzhDishual


Reply #42 on: May 30, 2011, 05:33:00 AM
Hi OU blokes, I'm far from a skeptic, just the contrary. OK. OK! F' measurements! The TEK gives OU ! God save the TEK. My intuition (and also some experiments) tells me that all these kinda JT CCTs are, indeed, more or less, 'OU'. But 'intuition' is not scientific. Is it? My experiments was about a non charge conservation anomaly. For ex: a replication of : http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tepcoil.htm Yes, there is non charge conservation if you use a kinda JT CCT. A non charge conservation but not 'OU'. (1/2 * C * V *V - wise).
You know what? IMHO, Nature does not like to be disturbed and "over" reacts. This appends when you use square waves, resonance. and other shenanigans. Of course, if you dismiss the existence of Aether you should experiment some psychological trouble. Just IMHO. Very Best
Logged
xee2


Reply #43 on: May 30, 2011, 07:19:12 AM
Quote from: NerzhDishual on May 30, 2011, 05:33:00 AM I'm far from a skeptic, just the contrary.
There is a lot of good evidence that T. Henry Moray had a working OU device. You may want to read up on him.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #43 on: May 30, 2011, 07:19:12 AM
poynt99

TPU-Elite Hero Member Posts: 1611 It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Reply #44 on: May 30, 2011, 10:01:01 AM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 04:14:32 AM If you will look at the input Power waveform from the Tek 3032 (in my early posts), you will see that the instantaneous Pin has a large AC component. The Tek provides V(t) * I(t), then over numerous cycles will calculate the mean input power. I trust this method much more than using a DVM to measure I (meter) * V (battery), given the AC component in the input power. Indeed, measuring the input power is challenging, given the remarkable AC component observed... hence the suggestion to use a cap for the input in lieu of a battery. Or a calorimeter for the measurements. I'm looking for a capacitor that does not "leak" appreciably, something in the 0.5 F range would be great.
I urge you to reconsider Professor. When dealing with DC power sources, heavy averaging of both the battery voltage and current signals is the most reliable way to measure input power. You simply multiply the two DMM values together (taking the CSR value into account), and the result is an accurate net average INPUT power measurement. .99
powercat

Hero Member Posts: 615 we know enough to know we don't know enough

Reply #45 on: May 30, 2011, 02:49:32 PM
Hi Professor poynt99 is one of the best person I know when it comes to measurements, there is a thread called Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011,where there is a claim
of OU so far no one on this forum has matched those results and only a small minority elsewhere stand by that claim of OU, this circuit has been around for two years on numerous forums poynt99 has ben trying to tell the inventor about the measurement errors for quite some time, and only recently appears to be finally getting through, and dare I say it, it could be now looking promising. I hope you don't end up in a long drawn out measurement argument, the best way to resolve it would be to make a self-runner as has already been suggested.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #45 on: May 30, 2011, 02:49:32 PM
Sponsored links:
JouleSeeker


Reply #46 on: May 30, 2011, 04:53:34 PM
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 10:01:01 AM I urge you to reconsider Professor. When dealing with DC power sources, heavy averaging of both the battery voltage and current signals is the most reliable way to measure input power. You simply multiply the two DMM values together (taking the CSR value into account), and the result is an accurate net average INPUT power measurement. .99
Glad to hear from you on this forum as well, .99.
It was indeed your
suggestion to use the Tek DPO scope to calculate the MEAN input power that I have been using, as explained above. And you have also suggested that, as above: "You simply multiply the two DMM values together..." I understand your approach to measure the input power Pin by measuring the current across CSRin and multiplying by the battery voltage. However, when I look at the INSTANTANEOUS Pin waveform on the Tek 3032, I see that Pin fluctuates around zero, and the MEAN (not RMS) value of the Pin is close to zero. (Same result using my ATTEN scope and looking at the power waveform, integrating by hand over one cycle.) This is a significant result -- and I would be surprised if it is just wrong; but I certainly welcome further testing as measurment errors at this stage are certainly possible. In any case, this result from the Power waveform on the Tek 3032 oscilloscope, evidently disagrees with the dual-DMM method used by Itsu, discussed above. Further, when I ran this sj1 circuit using a single AA rechargeable battery overnight, the battery voltage had not dropped measurably the next morning, over nine hours running. So I do not think that the circuit was drawing 40 mW as calculated by Itsu in his video, using the dual-DMM-multiply method. I would like to see a direct comparison of the two methods for evaluating Pin, on this particular circuit. You have a Tek DPO available, . 99. If the MEAN power input as determined using the DPO differs from the dual-DMM method, as appears to be the case, then a resolution of the discrepancy would be useful. (I should note that while the Tek 3032 I've borrowed is available at the university, I have to use it there -- about 70 miles distant from my home. I do not get there often at this time.)
I take a time window (2useconds typically) in which there are many cycles, to acquire a good value for the Mean power, both for input and output power. The Tek 3032 math multiply function allows me to get INSTANTANEOUS power by multiplying for me Vin (t) * Iin (t) -- and this power waveform is plotted (red waveforms above). Then the MEAN is extracted over numerous cycles. As you know, .99, we discussed the merits of the MEAN-power (V(t)*I(t)) method at OUResearch at length over the past several
months. Are you now saying that the dual-DMM method is more reliable than the MEAN power method?
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #46 on: May 30, 2011, 04:53:34 PM
JouleSeeker


Reply #47 on: May 30, 2011, 05:26:27 PM
This weekend I have placed four 10,000 uF caps in parallel, and have managed to get the system to feed back into these caps. There is NO battery in the system, only caps. The voltage across the caps is nearly constant now, dropping very slowly with LED lit and no CSR's -- my problem is that the caps detached from the circuit drop in voltage at a measurably significant rate. This particular system does not appear to have demonstrable OU, but again the leaky caps are a problem. As noted earlier, I am trying to find caps that do not leak so fast, or at all. Any ideas on this would be helpful. Edit: Found some caps that leak very little... more later. thx
Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 08:15:14 PM by JouleSeeker Logged
JouleSeeker


Reply #48 on: May 30, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
A brief comment on a possible source of anomalous energy that we know very little about (except for its existence): "What Is Dark Energy? More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe. "... "Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues. " Read more: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-darkenergy/
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #48 on: May 30, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
poynt99

Reply #49 on: May 30, 2011, 07:13:02 PM
Professor, Under ideal conditions, the scope method is accurate. What I am suggesting is this; if the scope and DMM methods do not agree, one of them must be wrong. DC power sources have a power factor of 1.0, therefore heavily averaging the current and voltage measurements is not only the best way to measure the INPUT power, but it is the easiest and most accessible. .99
Logged
xee2


Reply #50 on: May 30, 2011, 07:13:51 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 05:26:27 PM As noted earlier, I am trying to find caps that do not leak so fast, or at all. Any ideas on this would be helpful.
All electrolytic capacitors have internal resistance that drains energy and causes voltage drop. My 10,000 uF caps drop from 5.5 volts to about 5.0 volts in about a minute. The best capacitors for holding charge are silver mica caps. However, this should not be a problem, since a circuit with 8x power gain should be adding power much faster than it is being lost in the capacitor. Congratulations on getting the circuit to self run. That is a big step towards showing that it is over unity. I like to perform reality checks. If your circuit is producing 8x power gain, then putting 1/2 watts in should give 4 watts out. To test if this is happening you could use an 1/8 watt resistor as a load and see if it gets very hot with 1/2 watts input. It should if it is really getting 4 watts into it.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #50 on: May 30, 2011, 07:13:51 PM
Sponsored links:
nul-points

Hero Member Posts: 620 Maxwell's Daemon ...my drinking buddy

Reply #51 on: May 30, 2011, 08:26:13 PM
hello Steven
welcome to the wonderful world of 'alternative energy' - a minefield of measurement issues and previously-uncharted system behaviour!
i am not yet convinced that a true 'overunity' electrical system should always be capable of self-sustained operation with only a capacitor as it's main energy 'buffer' so, for example, i was unprepared for the moment in Romero's video when he disconnected the battery and the system continued to run without any apparent impact of this (using only a capacitor and rotor momentum as its short-term energy buffers) for a further 15 minutes or so, until he switched off the device obviously, if, as appears to be the case with Romero's device, you have a circuit which is capable of self-sustained operation without requiring a battery, then all well and good - but this is only a confidence booster for us in being able to
accept what is claimed - ie. 'i'll believe it if i can see it' the objection of 'measurement error' is immediately redundant if, for example, a group of people witness a 'powered, heavier-than-air, contraption' run along the grass, take to the air, and perform a circuit of Kitty Hawk airspace!
i don't feel 'uneasy' about claiming 'overunity' which still depends on the presence of a battery (otherwise i wouldn't be performing the cell experiments recorded at the blog linked below!) - a battery is after all, in some sense, just a rather longer term energy 'buffer' obviously the main difference between a battery and a capacitor is that (we believe) a battery is largely a 'chemically' produced charge separation, whilst (we believe) that a capacitor is largely an 'electrically' produced charge separation and it's because of the possibly more complex micro-scale processes at work in a battery that i can imagine that it's possible for a battery to play a significant role in achieving 'overunity' within a particular system (ie. the battery may have to be considered as just one of many components within a particular 'overunity' process)
therefore, if we can accept that it is still 'ok' for an overunity system to require a battery, we just need to account for it in our burden of proof surely the battery-related equivalent of the 'self-runs only from capacitor' type demonstration is this: the system is measured to perform a significantly greater total amount of work than the previously measured average Watt-hour capacity of that battery (measured using a conventional dissipative load, eg. a resistor, or heater, etc) in other words, a more formal test along the lines of your informal test: 'i left the system running overnight, with no measurable drop in battery voltage' the confirmation of 'overunity' in a battery-dependent system can either take the form of more energy converted in the same time (ie. higher continuous power out than drawn from the battery) or it could be just that the system is
capable of sustaining a certain power level for significantly longer than the Watt-hour capacity of the battery (where 'significantly' longer may also be 'indefinitely' longer, effectively)
since you have made your initial findings on a system which includes a battery, why not make your next step to be a 'batteries included' style test? (using a suitably small capacity battery for convenience!) this will either confirm or deny your instantaneous measurement results if the new test results prove positive, then it would be interesting to move on to a 'capacitor only' style test and see if this also provides confirmation - or if instead it produces another anomaly (eg. 'overunity with battery' does not necessarily imply 'overunity with capacitor')
of course, if the battery style test does NOT provide confirmation of the 'instrumentation' results - then see the 1st paragraph of this post!
looking forward with interest to your next steps! np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #51 on: May 30, 2011, 08:26:13 PM
JouleSeeker

Reply #52 on: May 30, 2011, 09:00:12 PM
Hey, I appreciate your comments Xee2 and Nul-points. Meanwhile, a quick test today:
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 07:13:02 PM Professor, Under ideal conditions, the scope method is accurate. What I am suggesting is this; if the scope and DMM methods do not agree, one of them must be wrong. DC power sources have a power factor of 1.0, therefore heavily averaging the current and voltage measurements is not only the best way to measure the INPUT power, but it is the easiest and most accessible. .99
I got 10 mW in on one early sj1 system (see reply #1 above), using the Tek 3032. Itsu got 40 mW input power using the DMM method on his system. Limited time today (holiday w/ family) -- but I did a quick test, another way to measure Pin. Four 10K uF caps, to run the sj1 circuit. By measuring the volts before and after 30 seconds on the caps, I can calculate input power easily. delta-E = 1/2 C(Vi**2 - Vf**2) , Pin = deltaE / delta-T , 30 seconds. C = 40mF. Start, Vinitial = 1.385V , Vfinal = 1.255V So delta-E = 6.8 mJoules. and Pin = 6.8/o.5min = 13.6 mW,
pls check my math.
in reasonable agreement with the Tek-scope measurement under similar conditions, 10 mW (see reply #1 for the data, Pin on the left). Again, the Tek3032 is distant from here, so I can't do the two measurements within minutes, but I think this tends to verify the scope method. I would ask Itsu to do the same thing on his sj1 circuit, and compare with the
dual-DMM method. I like to check things out, especially when measurement methods appear to disagree.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #52 on: May 30, 2011, 09:00:12 PM
TinselKoala


Reply #53 on: May 30, 2011, 09:23:24 PM
I am afraid I'm touching a tar baby here, but... here goes. First, I am glad that you are using caps, because that does give you an accurate way of estimating the ENERGY that you are inputting to the circuit in a given amount of time. Please for the moment forget about POWER and especially "mean power". Energy is not power and power is not energy. Very high power multiplication factors may easily be achieved in oscillating circuits with no gain in energy. And I think we are all clear that it is ENERGY that is the important parameter when claims of Overunity or COP>1 are being made. Now.... you can measure the energy output of your JT by integrating the INSTANTANEOUS power curve over a time period. There is no need to get any kind of average power reading, in fact this is a major (and common) error. If your scope can only do the one math function at a time, then you must do the integration manually. There are several ways to do this. First, get away from the habit of displaying so many cycles on the screen that they are uninterpretable. Display only 3 or 4 complete waveforms, or even a single one. OK, so now you display, say, two complete cycles of the instantaneous power curve. Overlay a piece of tracing graph paper on the screen and trace out the curves carefully. The integral of this curve is the VOLUME occupied by the surface defined by the vertical dimension (the inst. power value) and the horizontal dimension (time). Using the scope's graticle and the horiz and vert settings, calibrate your little graph paper squares. (they will be in Joules). Then
count up the area of your waveform.... and don't forget to multiply that by enough to fill up your known 30-second input energy from the caps. Compare and contrast. You are comparing Energy IN, using the correct calculation you have shown above, over a 30 second period, with the Energy OUT, which is integral(VxI)dt, from 0 to 30 seconds. Only if Energy OUT exceeds Energy IN is there any reason to get excited at all. No "average power" or especially "RMS voltage and current" goes into the calculation at all. Of course, if your scope will do integration, your problem is solved. (I get 6.8 microJoules; I suppose you are using "mF" and "mJ" to mean microFarads and microJoules. I am more used to using "m" as "milli" and "u" (like greek mu) for micro.) EDIT.. Whoops, sorry, my bad... you DO mean "milliJoules". I misread the size of your cap bank, I didn't realize you were using 10,000 uF x 4. Apologies. I accept your 6.8 milliJoules figure.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #53 on: May 30, 2011, 09:23:24 PM
nul-points


Reply #54 on: May 30, 2011, 09:25:39 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 09:00:12 PM Hey, I appreciate your comments Xee2 and Nul-points. [...]
Meanwhile, a quick test today: Four 10K uF caps, to run the sj1 circuit. By measuring the volts before and after 30 seconds on the caps, I can calculate input power easily. delta-E = 1/2 C(Vi**2 - Vf**2) , Pin = deltaE / delta-T , 30 seconds. C = 40mF. Start, Vinitial = 1.385V , Vfinal = 1.255V So delta-E = 6.8 mJoules. and Pin = 6.8/o.5min = 13.6 mW, pls check my math.
in reasonable agreement with the Tek-scope measurement under similar conditions, 10 mW (see reply #1 for the data, Pin on the left). [...]
hi Steven i think you have an incorrect method for calculating Pin [(multiple) EDITs: (to clear up my mess! LOL) a Joule is a Watt-second - i see you've divided Ein by units of minutes; Also - thanks to TK for spotting my transcription error! Steven, apologies - your Ein calc method is good, but Pin needs units of seconds, not minutes] Pin = 6.87/30 = 0.23mW
another potential issue to note - the cap value can be +/- 10-20% when doing these calcs, it's wise to measure the cap value of course, for a 'ball-park' calculation it's not necessary! hope this helps np PS i admire your other 'extra-mural' work , investigating & providing
low-cost solar cooking solutions for developing countries!
Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 09:45:58 PM by nul-points Logged
Free Energy
Reply #54 on: May 30, 2011, 09:25:39 PM
Sponsored links:
TinselKoala


Reply #55 on: May 30, 2011, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: nul-points on May 30, 2011, 09:25:39 PM hi Steven i think you have an incorrect method for calculating Ein you should calculate the Energy stored in C for each voltage, start & end THEN subtract to get total hence:40mF 1.385V => 38.37mJ 1.225V => 30.01mJ Ein 8.36mJ
Pin = 8.36/0.5 = 16.72mW another potential issue to note - the cap value can be +/- 10-20% when doing these calcs, it's wise to measure the cap value of course, for a 'ball-park' calculation it's not necessary! hope this helps np PS i admire your other 'extra-mural' work , investigating & providing low-cost solar cooking solutions for developing countries!
Vfinal is 1.255, not 1.225 as you have it. The algebra is correct, both methods give the same answer, but you've got to use the same input numbers !! (CVinitVinit)/2 - (CVfinalVfinal)/2 = (C/2)(ViVi)-(C/2)(VfVf) = (C/2)(ViVi-VfVf)
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #55 on: May 30, 2011, 09:36:51 PM
yssuraxu_697


Reply #56 on: May 30, 2011, 10:32:28 PM
BTW When using very large capacitors, is capacitive reactance considered? For example 40000uF has Xc=10e-7ohms at 4Mhz.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #56 on: May 30, 2011, 10:32:28 PM
xee2


Reply #57 on: May 30, 2011, 10:53:11 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 09:00:12 PM
delta-E = 1/2 C(Vi**2 - Vf**2) , Pin = deltaE / delta-T , 30 seconds. C = 40mF. Start, Vinitial = 1.385V , Vfinal = 1.255V So delta-E = 6.8 mJoules. and Pin = 6.8/o.5min = 13.6 mW, pls check my math.
It is a good thing you are a physics professor. I would have gotten this wrong on a test. I get: ( 500 ) * ( 40e-6 ) * ( 1.385^2 - 1.255^2 ) = 6.864 milli Joules total energy therefore over 30 seconds = 6.864/30 = note > watt = Joule/sec What did I do wrong?
Logged
0.2288 mW
nul-points

Maxwell's Daemon ...my drinking buddy

Reply #58 on: May 30, 2011, 11:18:13 PM
Quote from: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 10:53:11 PM [...] therefore over 30 seconds = 6.864/30 = note > watt = Joule/sec What did I do wrong? 0.2288 mW
LOL - if you're wrong then at least two of us are!

Quote from: nul-points on May 30, 2011, 09:25:39 PM [...] a Joule is a Watt-second - i see you've divided Ein by units of minutes; [...] Steven, apologies - your Ein calc method is good, but Pin needs units of seconds, not minutes] Pin = 6.87/30 = 0.23mW [...] np [...]
...fortunately, i suspect we're both correct!

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #58 on: May 30, 2011, 11:18:13 PM
Tudi


Reply #59 on: May 30, 2011, 11:20:19 PM
call me a simple guy BUT, we are debating over this power usage / gain issue for days and days. If you would have left that LED(better more then 1) on the device running and some of the output to loop back, at least we would have a very vague idea if it runs for a short time or very long time. ( yes, i realize that these high frequency ringer circuits are tricky regarding the light emiting consumers = same visual brightness if close to 30 fps or continues operation ) Better yet, if this circuit is so easy to replicate, just make a new one and put the new one to run on a button cell battery with a big as possible consumer that you estimate it should hold. And put another battery without the circuit with similar load. Yes, these are very barbaric tests, not even close to an 50% precision. But if both seem to die off in close "year" then maybe the gain is very small. What do you have to loose ? 2 button cells and 3 hours ? What can you gain ? realize that some specific part of this circuit is very important to know to replicate it ( maybe key component)
poynt99


Reply #60 on: May 30, 2011, 11:23:35 PM
Quote from: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 10:53:11 PM It is a good thing you are a physics professor. I would have gotten this wrong on a test. I get: ( 500 ) * ( 40e-6 ) * ( 1.385^2 - 1.255^2 )
= 6.864 milli Joules total energy therefore over 30 seconds = 6.864/30 = note > watt = Joule/sec What did I do wrong? 0.2288 mW
You should not square then subtract the capacitor voltage. You subtract the voltage, THEN square it.
.99 EDIT: Yep, you guys are correct. Ignore the above.
Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 12:31:50 AM by poynt99 Logged
Free Energy
Reply #60 on: May 30, 2011, 11:23:35 PM
Sponsored links:
xee2


Reply #61 on: May 30, 2011, 11:50:19 PM
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 11:23:35 PM You should not square then subtract the capacitor voltage. You subtract the voltage, THEN square it.
.99
Thanks.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #61 on: May 30, 2011, 11:50:19 PM
nul-points


Reply #62 on: May 31, 2011, 12:01:14 AM
Quote from: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 11:50:19 PM Thanks.
xee you, me and TinselKoala all agree that the Ein = 6.8mJ you and i, correctly divided 6.8 by 30 seconds to give Pin = 0.23mW you didn't do anything wrong!
Logged
xee2


Reply #63 on: May 31, 2011, 12:06:13 AM
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 11:23:35 PM You should not square then subtract the capacitor voltage. You subtract the voltage, THEN square it.
Hmmm... I do not agree. starting energy = 0.5 * C * V1 * V1 end energy = 0.5 * C * V2 * V2 there fore energy change = (0.5 * C * V1 * V1) - (0.5 * C * V2 * V2) = 0.5 * C * (V1 * V1 - V2 * V2)
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #63 on: May 31, 2011, 12:06:13 AM
poynt99


Reply #64 on: May 31, 2011, 12:34:04 AM
Yep, agreed. Sorry. .99

Logged
LarryC

Hero Member
Posts: 674

Reply #65 on: May 31, 2011, 01:22:46 AM
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 07:13:02 PM What I am suggesting is this; if the scope and DMM methods do not agree, one of them must be wrong. DC power sources have a power factor of 1.0, therefore heavily averaging the current and voltage measurements is not only the best way to measure the INPUT power, but it is the easiest and most accessible.
DC power factor is 1.0. True in most cases, but not in this circuit. Check out the attached picture, from the first video showing the input volts, current and V x I, and note the current trace, showing positive and negative current. DMM method of true rms V x I does not take into account phase differences. Steven's Tek measurements methods does account for the phase difference and seems correct. In fact, it appears that some energy is being returned to the battery. Regards, Larry
ScreenHunter_01 May. 30 17.44.jpg (58.09 KB, 558x568 - viewed 306 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #65 on: May 31, 2011, 01:22:46 AM
Sponsored links:
WilbyInebriated

Hero Member Posts: 2121 dum spiro pugno

Reply #66 on: May 31, 2011, 01:24:05 AM
hey poynty, did you ever verify that "Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope" with anything other than a sim? i see you pimping it all over, yet your thread about it is still locked and you have been promising updates... yet there are none. i asked you about after a month of silence and now another month has gone by. what gives?
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #66 on: May 31, 2011, 01:24:05 AM
xee2


Reply #67 on: May 31, 2011, 01:58:53 AM
Quote from: LarryC on May 31, 2011, 01:22:46 AM In fact, it appears that some energy is being returned to the battery.
Yes. When the output coil magnetic field collapses a pulse of energy is pushed back into the battery. This was documented in the Joule ringer thread.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #67 on: May 31, 2011, 01:58:53 AM
xee2


Reply #68 on: May 31, 2011, 02:09:30 AM
Quote from: LarryC on May 31, 2011, 01:22:46 AM DMM method of true rms V x I does not take into account phase differences. Steven's Tek measurements methods does account for the phase difference and seems correct.
If the power is being computed from the instantaneous current and voltage the power factor does not apply. That is only needed when computing using the peak or RMS values.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #68 on: May 31, 2011, 02:09:30 AM
poynt99


Reply #69 on: May 31, 2011, 02:26:53 AM
Larry, I was writing a nice long post, then I was interrupted and my pc shut down, so I lost it. Suffice it to say that since we are dealing with a DC source, all that need be done is to multiply the battery voltage (which is 99% DC when measured directly across the battery terminals, unless the battery is in poor or discharged condition), times the heavily averaged CSR voltage. Then factor in the value of the CSR (x4 if using a 0.25 Ohm for eg.) and the result is the average power from the battery. The PF=1 for a DC source holds in all cases. .99
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #69 on: May 31, 2011, 02:26:53 AM
Sponsored links:
poynt99


Reply #70 on: May 31, 2011, 02:35:45 AM
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 31, 2011, 01:24:05 AM hey poynty, did you ever verify that "Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope" with anything other than a sim?
No.
Quote i see you pimping it all over, yet your thread about it is still locked and you have been promising updates... yet there are none. i asked you about after a month of silence and now another month has gone by. what gives?
It works precisely as discussed. Proving it on the bench (and I shall) is simply academic. Ask again in about a month's time if you haven't seen anything from me yet. I've been a bit busy with 3 weeks vacation and working on the Rose circuit here in there. I'm on my way home from vacation today. .99
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #70 on: May 31, 2011, 02:35:45 AM
WilbyInebriated


Reply #71 on: May 31, 2011, 05:05:17 AM
Quote from: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 02:35:45 AM No.
imagine that...
Quote from: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 02:35:45 AM It works precisely as discussed. Proving it on the bench (and I shall) is simply academic. Ask again in about a month's time if you haven't seen anything from me yet. I've been a bit busy with 3 weeks vacation and working on the Rose circuit here in there. I'm on my way home from vacation today. .99
i'm still waiting on that verification... academic or otherwise. don't worry about me asking again, next time you pimp it, i'll be there... so you've been on vacation for 3 weeks, how is that relevant? you told us in your locked thread you would have verification over the weekend... that was two (2) months ago. i suggest you pull a couple irons out of the fire and actually verify your procedure before pimping it any further. i know you'd bet your house on it... but that's just not science.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #71 on: May 31, 2011, 05:05:17 AM
poynt99

TPU-Elite Hero Member

Reply #72 on: May 31, 2011, 05:46:00 AM
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 31, 2011, 05:05:17 AM imagine that...i'm still waiting on that verification... academic or otherwise. don't worry about me asking again, next time you pimp it, i'll be there... so you've been on vacation for 3 weeks, how is that relevant? you told us in your locked thread you would have verification over the weekend... that was two (2) months ago. i suggest you pull a couple irons out of the fire and actually verify your procedure before pimping it any further. i know you'd bet your house on it... but that's just not science.
Did you not see my post where I explained my desire to test the DMM method on Rose's oscillator? I've been on vacation away from my lab, so as far as getting it done since I've been working on this stuff, it's been quite impossible in the last three weeks. Finishing the sims and doing the technical walk-through is all I can do right now. When I return and have a chance to get settled in (4 hour time difference) etc. I will get around to building the oscillator and making the tests, but I did not know you were assigned to be the schedule keeper and to hold everyone to their proposed offerings. If I choose to work on something else or nothing at all after I propose to do something (re. a couple months ago), that is my prerogative. Is that quite alright with you my friend? .99
Logged
LarryC


Reply #73 on: May 31, 2011, 05:49:54 AM
Quote from: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 02:26:53 AM Larry, I was writing a nice long post, then I was interrupted and my pc shut down, so I lost it. Suffice it to say that since we are dealing with a DC source, all that need be done is to multiply the battery voltage (which is 99% DC when measured directly across the battery terminals, unless the battery is in poor or discharged condition), times the heavily averaged CSR voltage. Then factor in the value of the CSR (x4 if using a 0.25 Ohm for eg.) and the result is the average power from the battery. The PF=1 for a DC source holds in all cases.
Thanks xee2 and WilbryInebriated(love that name) for your responses. @poynt99: What a pile of BS. Please present your proof that ignores all professional EE power measurements. Regards, Larry
JouleSeeker


Reply #75 on: May 31, 2011, 06:14:46 AM
Nul-pts:
Quote Steven, apologies - your Ein calc method is good, but Pin needs units of seconds, not minutes]
Pin = 6.87/30 = 0.23mW
and Xee2 -- got it also, and others.

Quote from: nul-points on May 30, 2011, 11:18:13 PM LOL - if you're wrong then at least two of us are! ...fortunately, i suspect we're both correct!
You guys are indeed both correct, and I'm glad you are! Yes, Watts = J/sec, of course. I asked that someone check my math as I was rushing out the door, and you did -- and I thank you. You both get A's on this quiz.... Seriously, I do appreciate it. And this means that the power input is really close to zero, at Pin = 6.87J/30s = 0.23mW[/quote] The mean power is close to zero as seen on both the Tek 3230 and my little ATTEN, as I've been saying-- you are correct about this also, LARRY-C, and thanks for noting the strong oscillating component in the input power also. You got it right. (Pls be easy on .99 though, a fellow who has taught me some things patiently and who has been soaking up the rays in Hawaii. He's back now.) Now -- the LED on the output leg still lights up, though dimly... at 0.23mW input power... hmmm... I've repeated the measurement now several times at voltages between approx. 1.2 and 2 Vin from the cap... Always the input power is in this small range, around 0.2 - .3 mW input power... There are three of us now in my small town working on this little circuit! Bob is planning to increase Cb, slow the thing down, and see what happens. All three of us have our own scopes, so this is getting fun... BUT... it is still just "evidence for" OU at this stage, not a proof yet. I hope that is clear.
(PS -- I helped my expecting daughter most of the day, that's why I was slow in responding. She's preparing for the baby coming soon! proud grand-pa here...)
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #75 on: May 31, 2011, 06:14:46 AM
Sponsored links:
WilbyInebriated


Reply #76 on: May 31, 2011, 06:27:55 AM
Quote from: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 05:46:00 AM Did you not see my post where I explained my desire to test the DMM method on Rose's oscillator?
yes. in point of fact i have seen you express this 'desire' several times over the last two months. i have yet to see you do so in actuality.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 05:46:00 AM I've been on vacation away from my lab, so as far as getting it done since I've been working on this stuff, it's been quite impossible in the last three weeks. Finishing the sims and doing the technical walk-through is all I can do right now.
i'm not talking about the last three weeks... i am talking about the fact that YOU told us you would be working on it over the weekend... TWO MONTHS AGO.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 05:46:00 AM When I return and have a chance to get settled in (4 hour time difference) etc. I will get around to building the oscillator and making the tests, but I did not know you were assigned
to be the schedule keeper and to hold everyone to their proposed offerings. If I choose to work on something else or nothing at all after I propose to do something (re. a couple months ago), that is my prerogative. Is that quite alright with you my friend? .99
i am not your schedule keeper nor did i ever suggest i was... drop the gross hyperbole darren. what i am saying is don't go pimping your proposed method as 'golden' when it has NEVER been verified. what you choose to do IS your prerogative, so is making promises you don't keep i guess... let me try saying that another way. put your money where your mouth is or don't open it. is that clear enough my friend?
edit: congrats on the expected scion steven!

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #76 on: May 31, 2011, 06:27:55 AM
JouleSeeker


Reply #77 on: May 31, 2011, 07:34:51 AM
Thanks, Larry-C. So I think we have a straightforward way to measure the input power Pin without an oscilloscope, using a cap and a stopwatch. Measuring Pout will be more difficult. On the output leg of the circuit, the voltage shows large swings, typically 12 V or so Vpp. One could put a rectifier in this output leg,
then charge a cap... As long as that did not adversely affect the circuit performance. I would replace the LED with a diode in the same direction, so that less power is dumped on the diode-LED, and more on the output Capacitor... Wish I had more time for this, but I've a long-planned road trip coming up Thursday, so away from my home lab for about ten days at that point... sigh... missing out on some of the fun here...
Logged
poynt99


Reply #78 on: May 31, 2011, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 31, 2011, 06:27:55 AM yes. in point of fact i have seen you express this 'desire' several times over the last two months. i have yet to see you do so in actuality.
I've been busy on various things. If I change my mind and choose to do some other work or project, even after stating that I would work on something over the weekend, it's really not your concern, nor should you make it so.
Quote i'm not talking about the last three weeks... i am talking about the fact that YOU told us you would be working on it over the weekend... TWO MONTHS AGO.
I've been busy on various things. If I change my mind and choose to do some other work or project, even after stating that I would work on something over the weekend, it's really not your concern, nor should you make it so.
Quote i am not your schedule keeper nor did i ever suggest i was...
Correct. You are however acting as if you are.

Quote
what i am saying is don't go pimping your proposed method as 'golden' when it has NEVER been verified.
Prove it has never been verified, then you may have some basis for your assertion.
Quote what you choose to do IS your prerogative, so is making promises you don't keep i guess...
Prove that I used the word "promise". If I use the word "promise" then I will come through. Anything other than that and it will be as time permits.
Quote let me try saying that another way. put your money where your mouth is or don't open it. is that clear enough my friend?
Not sure what's gotten into you my friend, but when it comes to technical matters, I speak the truth the best I know it, and when I am wrong, I admit it. That won't ever change, so pipe up as often as you wish. .99
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #78 on: May 31, 2011, 09:44:45 AM
WilbyInebriated


Reply #79 on: May 31, 2011, 12:45:31 PM
yeah my bad, you never actually used the word "promise" and i busted tk's balls once for doing the same thing to me so... mea culpa on that point. i'm sure you'll get it done sometime, you are a man of your word are you not? i guess i can understand how easy it is to get sidetracked by 'higher profile' threads and your no oscope measurement thread really didn't get the attention it deserved,
here and at your site. it's elegantly simple, so i am as puzzled as you as to why so few noticed it. i was hoping you would be all over it seeing as how it would be a great procedure that would help a lot of people that didn't have access to expensive equipment make/take valid measurements. regardless, better late than never i guess. @all here is a gratuitous plug for poynt's thread: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10564 apologies for the interruption. poynt, it's kind of buried in the 'Discussion board help and admin topics' forum, maybe you could talk stephan into placing it in a forum that gets a little more traffic? heck, i think it should be made a sticky thread when ( i almost said if... ) you actually verify it.
Logged
yssuraxu_697


Reply #80 on: May 31, 2011, 01:03:39 PM
Since I'm persistent *********** I repeat the question: "BTW When using very large capacitors, is capacitive reactance considered? For example 40000uF has Xc=10e-7ohms at 4Mhz." In plain english: LARGE CAPACITORS ARE SHORT CIRCUIT FOR HIGH FREQUENCY. So how you expect to loop this with 40KuF caps? Or is this intentional feature?
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #80 on: May 31, 2011, 01:03:39 PM
Sponsored links:
nul-points


Reply #81 on: May 31, 2011, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: yssuraxu_697 on May 31, 2011, 01:03:39 PM Since I'm persistent *********** I repeat the question: [...]
hi it's evident from the Prof's last few posts that he has been, and will be, busy with family commitments for a while maybe you can add 'patience' to your list of virtues? greetings np
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #81 on: May 31, 2011, 01:35:23 PM
yssuraxu_697
Jr. Member
Posts: 89

Reply #82 on: May 31, 2011, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: nul-points on May 31, 2011, 01:35:23 PM maybe you can add 'patience' to your list of virtues?
On the contrary. I think most people here are too patient reading endless pages of near-pointless arguments while paying no attention to fundamental issues with designs Good example is Rosemary's thread. What was SNR ratio there... 5%? Do we want research forum or pub here? Nobody will post the "good stuff" on the pub wall you know.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #82 on: May 31, 2011, 01:57:51 PM
xee2


Reply #83 on: May 31, 2011, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: yssuraxu_697 on May 31, 2011, 01:03:39 PM Since I'm persistent *********** I repeat the question: "BTW When using very large capacitors, is capacitive reactance considered? For example 40000uF has Xc=10e-7ohms at 4Mhz." In plain english: LARGE CAPACITORS ARE SHORT CIRCUIT FOR HIGH FREQUENCY.
So how you expect to loop this with 40KuF caps? Or is this intentional feature?
Large capacitors look like short to high frequency but they still charge and discharge with each cycle. The problem with large capacitor is that the internal resistance increases with frequency thus they have more energy lost per cycle to the internal resistance as frequency increases. You may need to do some research to understand that. In the self running Joule thief circuit I posted, the capacitor is at DC because the diode converts the AC to DC.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #83 on: May 31, 2011, 04:04:23 PM
JouleSeeker


Reply #84 on: May 31, 2011, 05:05:09 PM
Quote from: yssuraxu_697 on May 31, 2011, 01:03:39 PM Since I'm persistent *********** I repeat the question: "BTW When using very large capacitors, is capacitive reactance considered? For example 40000uF has Xc=10e-7ohms at 4Mhz." In plain english: LARGE CAPACITORS ARE SHORT CIRCUIT FOR HIGH FREQUENCY. So how you expect to loop this with 40KuF caps? Or is this intentional feature?
As noted above, I do not intend to use the output without some kind of rectification; I wrote above:
Quote
So I think we have a straightforward way to measure the input power Pin without an oscilloscope, using a cap and a stopwatch. Measuring Pout will be more difficult. On the output leg of the circuit, the voltage shows large swings, typically 12 V or so Vpp. One could put a rectifier in this output leg, then charge a cap... As long as that did not adversely affect the circuit performance.
I am interested in finding a reliable way to measure output Power, without using an oscilloscope. It is true that I attempted to loop the power back from the output leg, but this was a preliminary effort after some rectification-- and I have not had time to pursue this nor have I presented even preliminary results from that effort. It is on hold as I prepare for the imminent long trip. The results provided above were with the four caps charged to a voltage which I told you, measured, then connected into the circuit to provide the inputvoltage, in place of the battery. This was not the circuit in which I attempted to loop power back -- just the DUT discussed by me in posts 1&2. After each 30-second run, I stopped the run and measured the final voltage of the caps, to determine the input energy and then the input Power as delineated above in this thread. Are you saying there is something wrong with this method for determining the input power?
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #84 on: May 31, 2011, 05:05:09 PM
Sponsored links:
yssuraxu_697


Reply #85 on: May 31, 2011, 06:11:09 PM
Quote from: xee2 on May 31, 2011, 04:04:23 PM The problem with large capacitor is that the internal resistance increases with frequency
Very good, maybe it will spark a discussion how to make system that does not self-run better. Indeed ESR falls, Xc falls, but ESL rises. This makes "sweet" spot in cap freq response. In general polypropylene caps should be good in terms of ESR while electrolytic are horrible.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 05:05:09 PM As noted above, I do not intend to use the output without some kind of rectification;
DC pulse goes clean thru also. I'm using this effect in my pulse motor controller timing arrangement.
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 05:05:09 PM I am interested in finding a reliable way to measure output Power
I think that there is no other way besides looping or resistor heating. Other ways will spark endless discussions. But you cannot argue with 1L of boiling water, for example. I have seen endless burning of human resources on some other forums because some other forms of measurement were choosen...
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #85 on: May 31, 2011, 06:11:09 PM
prm

New_User Posts: 3

Reply #86 on: May 31, 2011, 07:03:02 PM
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 30, 2011, 09:23:24 PM I am afraid I'm touching a tar baby here, but... here goes. First, I am glad that you are using caps, because that does give you an accurate way of estimating the ENERGY that you are inputting to the circuit in a given amount of time. Please for the moment forget about POWER and especially "mean power". Energy is not power and power is not energy. Very high power multiplication factors may easily be achieved in oscillating circuits with no gain in energy. And I think we are all clear that it is ENERGY that is the important parameter when claims of Overunity or COP>1 are being made. Now.... you can measure the energy output of your JT by integrating the INSTANTANEOUS power curve over a time period. There is no need to get any kind of average power reading, in fact this is a major (and common) error. If your scope can only do the one math function at a time, then you must do the integration manually. There are several ways to do this. First, get away from the habit of displaying so many cycles on the screen that they are uninterpretable. Display only 3 or 4 complete waveforms, or even a single one. OK, so now you display, say, two complete cycles of the instantaneous power curve. Overlay a piece of tracing graph paper on the screen and trace out the curves carefully. The integral of this curve is the VOLUME occupied by the surface defined by the vertical dimension (the inst. power value) and the horizontal dimension (time). Using the scope's graticle and the horiz and vert settings, calibrate your little graph paper squares. (they will be in Joules). Then count up the area of your waveform.... and don't forget to multiply that by enough to fill up your known 30-second input energy from the caps. Compare and contrast. You are comparing Energy IN, using the correct calculation you have shown above, over a 30 second period, with the Energy OUT, which is integral(VxI)dt, from 0 to 30 seconds. Only if Energy OUT exceeds Energy IN is there any reason to get excited at all. No "average power" or especially "RMS voltage and current" goes into the calculation at all. Of course, if your scope will do integration, your problem is solved.
(I get 6.8 microJoules; I suppose you are using "mF" and "mJ" to mean microFarads and microJoules. I am more used to using "m" as "milli" and "u" (like greek mu) for micro.) EDIT.. Whoops, sorry, my bad... you DO mean "milliJoules". I misread the size of your cap bank, I didn't realize you were using 10,000 uF x 4. Apologies. I accept your 6.8 milliJoules figure.
Hello, everyone. I am new to this forum and here is my 10 cents worth. The above post of TinselKoala is the crux of the whole matter. It is not power per se that is the relevant issue, it is energy. And this energy can only be ascertained by integrating power with respect to time. Of course, this is easier said then done. If the oscilloscope has the capability of integrating the power, then this feature should be used, assuming it is accurate. If integration of the instantaneous power can't be done by the oscilloscope then as TinselKoala points out, one must find some other way. Using the method of a Riemann sum,for example, one must slice the time increments of the power signals as small as possible, then multiply these time slices by the instantaneous amplitude of the power for that time slice, and then sum over the total products of the times slices x instantaneous power amplitude. For this first-order approximation to approach an exact result, the time slices must be made as small as possible. As the time slices approach zero, the amplitude of the signal approaches a constant value. There is no other way for an accurate determination of over/unity of this circuit unless one uses this Riemann sum approximation approach. Emphasizing power and only power leads to misleading conclusions. Energy is king, not power.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #86 on: May 31, 2011, 07:03:02 PM
Hoppy


Reply #87 on: May 31, 2011, 07:50:30 PM
John Bedini has always stressed the importance of calculating energy in and out when calculating COP for his monopole motors and the like, so I don't see why the approach to measuring this circuit should be any different. I've built Stevens circuit and cannot get it anywhere close to self-running. Before anyone goes to the bother of calculating energy for this device, just let the battery run the device over a period of time because as with any Joule Thief type circuit, it will run right down over time and that's a certainty! Hoppy
Logged
xee2


Reply #88 on: May 31, 2011, 08:10:06 PM
@ JouleSeeker If you do not believe amp meter you can use this circuit to measure the input power. By looking at the voltage on the scope you can see the amount of noise in the current. I think you will find the result is very close to that with just an amp meter. NOTE - there will be very little noise in current.
input power measurement.jpg (45.65 KB, 768x576 - viewed 205 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #88 on: May 31, 2011, 08:10:06 PM
jmmac

New_User Posts: 5

Reply #89 on: May 31, 2011, 08:39:03 PM
prm, As I understand it: - In the original circuit with battery, Dr. Jones used his digital oscilloscope to
calculate the mean instantaneous power in and out. The instantaneous power: P(t) = I(t) * U(t) which changes over time. If you calculate the average of that instantaneous power over several cycles, you have a good measurement of the true power (oscilloscope measures current and voltage over time and multiplies the 2, then calculates the mean). I believe the mean power in and mean power out were calculated (measured) at the same time with 2 oscilloscopes. In conclusion: calculating mean instantaneous power over a period of time is equivalent to measuring the energy. Power is Work (Energy) by unit of time. - In the experiment powered by the large capacitor, the energy came from that capacitor and you can calculate the total energy it contains knowing the capacity and it's voltage. Knowing the initial and final voltage of the capacitor and the amount of time it was connected to the circuit, you can calculate the energy it gave to the circuit in that time and the mean power. That value was calculated and is very small. Regards, Jaime
Quote from: prm on May 31, 2011, 07:03:02 PM Hello, everyone. I am new to this forum and here is my 10 cents worth. The above post of TinselKoala is the crux of the whole matter. It is not power per se that is the relevant issue, it is energy. And this energy can only be ascertained by integrating power with respect to time. Of course, this is easier said then done. If the oscilloscope has the capability of integrating the power, then this feature should be used, assuming it is accurate. If integration of the instantaneous power can't be done by the oscilloscope then as TinselKoala points out, one must find some other way. Using the method of a Riemann sum,for example, one must slice the time increments of the power signals as small as possible, then multiply these time slices by the instantaneous amplitude of the power for that time slice, and then sum over the total products of the times slices x instantaneous power amplitude. For this first-order approximation to approach an exact result, the time slices must be made as small as possible. As the time slices approach zero, the amplitude of the signal approaches a constant value.
There is no other way for an accurate determination of over/unity of this circuit unless one uses this Riemann sum approximation approach. Emphasizing power and only power leads to misleading conclusions. Energy is king, not power.
JouleSeeker


Reply #90 on: May 31, 2011, 08:58:21 PM
Quote from: Hoppy on May 31, 2011, 07:50:30 PM John Bedini has always stressed the importance of calculating energy in and out when calculating COP for his monopole motors and the like, so I don't see why the approach to measuring this circuit should be any different. I've built Stevens circuit and cannot get it anywhere close to self-running. Before anyone goes to the bother of calculating energy for this device, just let the battery run the device over a period of time because as with any Joule Thief type circuit, it will run right down over time and that's a certainty! Hoppy
There are some basics that allow us to compare circuits, Hoppy. I noted that I ran with a capacitor bank for the input energy, and found a power draw of about 0.23 mW, with the LED dimly lit. Could you do the same with your replication, since we have these test data? Very easy to do, just requires a good cap (non-leaky as possible) and a stop watch. I took data over 30 seconds, as detailed above.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #90 on: May 31, 2011, 08:58:21 PM
Sponsored links:
Pirate88179


Reply #91 on: May 31, 2011, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: Hoppy on May 31, 2011, 07:50:30 PM
Before anyone goes to the bother of calculating energy for this device, just let the battery run the device over a period of time because as with any Joule Thief type circuit, it will run right down over time and that's a certainty! Hoppy
Some of them do not "Run right down" if you look at Gadgetmall's circuits...one of his JT designs will run over a year 24/7 on a single AA so that is a long time to test. The ones I have made take months to run the battery down. Just pointing this out is all. None of my circuits with the JT were OU. Bill
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #91 on: May 31, 2011, 09:33:08 PM
prm

New_User Posts: 3

Reply #92 on: May 31, 2011, 09:50:55 PM
Dr. Jones, First of all I want to commend you for your courage in relation to your work on 9/11 and thermite. Second, I think you also have courage, being a "mainstream" scientist with impressive credentials, and yet, you have an open mind about the possibility of alternative energy sources. Would that more scientists like you would be willing to stick their necks out in exploring new avenues. The present condition of main-stream science with its peer-review system and entrenched dogmatism is anti-science in my opinion. It stifles advancement. The main-stream stance implies they know everything there is to know about the laws of nature and they don't need to investigate any new idea. A quick reading of science history shows how absurd this position is. Concerning your circuit. The measurement methodology is the nagging issue here, as you are well aware of. Debate over this can go on forever. In my opinion the best way to "prove" a new technology is to take the prototype out of the chalk-board realm and into the real world. If there is energy gain going on, then as suggested by others, you should be able to feedback a small portion of the output back into the input to make the circuit action self-sustaining. This is where the rubber meets the road. After all, the circuit would have to do this if it were to be of any innovative and commerical value. As to the energy source, if you believe the zpe is real, then its an issue of tapping that energy through electro-magnetic means. Who knows, there might be a way. Incidently, you may remember me or not. I was the individual who contacted you a few years ago about an experiment I was doing with inertia and the zpe. Since then, I have done an experiment, using a high-speed video camera, that shows the speed of the center of mass of the system increases. By Euler's First Law and the conservation of momentum, this can only happen if an external force acts on a system. The external force was inertia. I plan to post the results of this experiment in the future on this website. Since this thread is not about this experiment I will only say if you are interested, you can send me a private message. As far as your circuit, I hope it turns out that you are tapping some energy source that has previously been ignored.
Logged
Hoppy


Reply #93 on: May 31, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 31, 2011, 09:33:08 PM Some of them do not "Run right down" if you look at Gadgetmall's circuits...one of his JT designs will run over a year 24/7 on a single AA so that is a long time to test. The ones I have made take months to run the battery down. Just pointing this out is all. None of my circuits with the JT were OU. Bill
A small battery powering a Joule Thief with LED load can indeed take months to run down to a point where the LED extinguishes. Puekert's Law also works in reverse in that the virtual capacity of a battery will greatly increase as the current drawn form a battery reduces significantly below the manufacturers discharge ratings. Studying battery discharge curves at sub C40 rates is an eye opener and something that all Bedini enthusiats should study before reaching conclusions about COP. Hoppy
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #93 on: May 31, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
JouleSeeker
Jr. Member
Posts: 78

Reply #94 on: May 31, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
Thank you for the succinct summary, jmmac:

Quote from: jmmac on May 31, 2011, 08:39:03 PM prm, As I understand it: - In the original circuit with battery, Dr. Jones used his digital oscilloscope to calculate the mean instantaneous power in and out. The instantaneous power: P(t) = I(t) * U(t) which changes over time. If you calculate the average of that instantaneous power over several cycles, you have a good measurement of the true power (oscilloscope measures current and voltage over time and multiplies the 2, then calculates the mean). \\.. In conclusion: calculating mean instantaneous power over a period of time is equivalent to measuring the energy. Power is Work (Energy) by unit of time. - In the experiment powered by the large capacitor, the energy came from that capacitor and you can calculate the total energy it contains knowing the capacity and it's voltage. Knowing the initial and final voltage of the capacitor and the amount of time it was connected to the circuit, you can calculate the energy it gave to the circuit in that time and the mean power. That value was calculated and is very small. Regards, Jaime
Logged
JouleSeeker


Reply #95 on: May 31, 2011, 10:56:14 PM
Quote from: prm on May 31, 2011, 09:50:55 PM Dr. Jones, First of all I want to commend you for your courage in relation to your work on 9/11 and thermite. Second, I think you also have courage, being a "main-stream" scientist with impressive credentials, and yet, you have an open mind about the possibility of alternative energy sources. Would that more scientists like you would be willing to stick their necks out in exploring new avenues.
Thank you indeed, prm. Yes, I have published in Scientific American, Phys Rev Letters, Nature, etc. My interest now is in helping the emergence of what I consider a nascent science -- novel electrodynamic energy, one might call it. Expect a battle, folks. (Been there, I know somewhat what to expect.)
Quote The present condition of main-stream science with its peer-review system and entrenched dogmatism is anti-science in my opinion. It stifles advancement. The main-stream stance implies they know everything there is to know about the laws of nature and they don't need to investigate any new idea. A quick reading of science history shows how absurd this position is.
Good points. There are some opportunities even in the peer-review system for publication that I might be able to help with. But yes -- the more "mainstream" guys (and probably BigOyl/Gov't - BO) can be expected to fight this emergence, as a free-energy source. As long as they control, they would allow it to be discussed probably... we can discuss how to get it out to humanity without having it stomped (or bought out) by bo.
Quote Concerning your circuit. The measurement methodology is the nagging issue here, as you are well aware of. Debate over this can go on forever. In my opinion the best way to "prove" a new technology is to take the prototype out of the chalk-board realm and into the real world. If there is energy gain going on, then as suggested by others, you should be able to feedback a small portion of the output back into the input to make the circuit action
self-sustaining. This is where the rubber meets the road. After all, the circuit would have to do this if it were to be of any innovative and commerical value
. Yes, self-sustaining is the goal. Somehow the output leg needs rectification in this case. I should emphasize that Sterling Allan originally called my little device a "Demonstration of OU" -- I objected, and had him change this to "Evidence for". It is not certain yet.
Quote As to the energy source, if you believe the zpe is real, then its an issue of tapping that energy through electro-magnetic means. Who knows, there might be a way.
"Do the Physics", we call it -- to find out what makes the device tick. But first, it has to be ticking!
Quote Incidently, you may remember me or not. I was the individual who contacted you a few years ago about an experiment I was doing with inertia and the zpe. Since then, I have done an experiment, using a high-speed video camera, that shows the speed of the center of mass of the system increases. By Euler's First Law and the conservation of momentum, this can only happen if an external force acts on a system. The external force was inertia. I plan to post the results of this experiment in the future on this website. Since this thread is not about this experiment I will only say if you are interested, you can send me a private message. As far as your circuit, I hope it turns out that you are tapping some energy source that has previously been ignored.
[/quote] Ah -- I'm very interested in your experiment, prm. here.

Logged
Pls do post your work
Free Energy
Reply #95 on: May 31, 2011, 10:56:14 PM
Sponsored links:
prm

New_User Posts: 3

Reply #96 on: May 31, 2011, 11:22:38 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 10:56:14 PM
Ah -- I'm very interested in your experiment, prm.
Pls do post your work here.
Dr. Jones, Thank you for responding to my last post. Since this is your "thread" on your circuit, I will only mention that I am in the process of doing a second, slightly different experiment to confirm the results of my first. I am taking meticulous care in this since the results of my experiment have extra-ordinary implications. About a month ago I sent a copy of the video to a MIT professor. I will not mention his name in case he doesn't want to be "associated" with this. What he said, after viewing the video surprised me. First, he admitted he could not explain why the speed of the center of mass of the system increased. And second, he encouraged me by saying, "by all means continue your research." I believe if I were making a fundamental error in my reasoning and analysis, he would have pointed it out. As soon as the results of my second experiment come out, I plan to post my own thread about this experiment on this website. 'There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt
any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.' J. Robert Oppenheimer
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #96 on: May 31, 2011, 11:22:38 PM
xee2


Reply #97 on: June 01, 2011, 12:21:57 AM
Suggested efficiency test circuit. If AC output is suspected, reverse diode D1 and add output power with diode reversed to power not reversed to get total output power.
test circuit.jpg (87.66 KB, 768x576 - viewed 314 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #97 on: June 01, 2011, 12:21:57 AM
Hoppy


Reply #98 on: June 01, 2011, 12:28:27 AM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 08:58:21 PM There are some basics that allow us to compare circuits, Hoppy. I noted that I ran with a capacitor bank for the input energy, and found a power draw of about 0.23 mW, with the LED dimly lit.
Could you do the same with your replication, since we have these test data? Very easy to do, just requires a good cap (non-leaky as possible) and a stop watch. I took data over 30 seconds, as detailed above.
Dr Jones, I have had some success since my last post as I've realised that I had an incorrect Rb resistor (2K) in circuit. I picked this up somewhere at the beginning of the thread as a change but can't find reference to it now. Anyway, with 56K I get a sinusoidal waveform scoped emitter to ground and the in / out power levels measured across 1R shunt resistors (without the additional 3R) appear to be fairly closely matched on my scope at around 4mW. However, there is quite a lot of noise making it difficult to get a relable reading. The LED is very dim but easy to see in a darkened room. I've left the circuit running overnight to monitor battery voltage level - running on a 1.5V AA. Hoppy
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #98 on: June 01, 2011, 12:28:27 AM
JouleSeeker


Reply #99 on: June 01, 2011, 02:39:48 AM
Quote from: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 12:28:27 AM Dr Jones, I have had some success since my last post as I've realised that I had an incorrect Rb resistor (2K) in circuit. I picked this up somewhere at the beginning of the thread as a
change but can't find reference to it now. Anyway, with 56K I get a sinusoidal waveform scoped emitter to ground and the in / out power levels measured across 1R shunt resistors (without the additional 3R) appear to be fairly closely matched on my scope at around 4mW. However, there is quite a lot of noise making it difficult to get a relable reading. The LED is very dim but easy to see in a darkened room. I've left the circuit running overnight to monitor battery voltage level - running on a 1.5V AA. Hoppy
Good progress, Hoppy! makes one Happy when a guy keeps going. How do you get "4mW" on the output, exactly? That is, does your scope do MATH, V*I, and you take the MEAN with the scope? or what? You write,
Quote "power levels measured across 1R shunt resistors"
-- that's what I use to get current... but how do you get the voltage V(t) to go with the current, to get power? PS -- what kind of scope are you using?
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #99 on: June 01, 2011, 02:39:48 AM
Sponsored links:
JouleSeeker


Reply #100 on: June 01, 2011, 03:05:37 AM
Quote from: xee2 on June 01, 2011, 12:21:57 AM
Suggested efficiency test circuit. If AC output is suspected, reverse diode D1 and add output power with diode reversed to power not reversed to get total output power.
First -- I really like your ability to do the neat schematic diagrams, very clear. Could I ask you to draw up in this fashion my hand-drawn circuit shown in post #2 of this thread?? Sure would appreciate it! Will facilitate communications... I see what you're doing in your test circuit, Xee2 -- filtering the input and output AC components (I think heavily, depending on C and R values) and using meters to measure current and Vout. Looks very much like the dual-DMM method of .99 discussed mostly over at OUR. I would want to test this method against another method, such as the Cap/Stop-watch method we discussed yesterday. Consider the input Power, first, using your method and the cap/watch method. We have some results today from Itsu, comparing these methods per my request (great guy to do this). Let me just quote from my response to him at OUR on this method (see http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=853.msg14342#new ):
Quote from: PhysicsProf on June 01, 2011, 01:21:10 AM Itsu -- I just watched your latest vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=P7x2Y0gdXWQ&feature=uploademail Quite well done. Thank you for this research effort. You are using about 2Kohms for Rb, whereas I'm using 51Kohms for Rb, in the test I did yesterday (and see my post #1). Pls try with about 51kOhms, and a red LED, would you? could bring us more into line. Notes: 1. Yesterday, the dual - DMM method of .99 gave 34mW, today 18.7mW -- and you noted you had NOT changed the circuit. Strange... Does the DMM method give variable results? or is it the circuit which changes? 2. You did the Cap/stopwatch method and have some results -- interesting. I attach a screen-shot of your results.
You say that the highest value is most in line with the DMM method, 12.2 mW. Yes, but this still does not appear to agree with the dual-MM method, 18.7mW or 34mW. Conclusion: dual DMM-method vis-a-vis the cap/time method needs further checking. Thanks again, Itsu.
And his latest response further indicates a problem with the DMM (meter) method: Itsu writes:
Quote from: Itsu on June 01, 2011, 01:32:00 AM Great, you found the video allready. Yes, i agree, we have some differences between the 2 circuits, and indeed the dual DMM method creates different results all the time.... I will try to match the components as close as possible, starting with a new coil,[snp]
I replied:
Quote " This is significant! please provide a few more examples of how this [dual-DMM method] varies, would you? And then i hope for some comment from .99
[/quote]
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #100 on: June 01, 2011, 03:05:37 AM
ghauff

Newbie Posts: 1

Reply #101 on: June 01, 2011, 06:02:17 AM
Hi, My attempt to replicate this circuit. What I can see is 67mV on a 1.5ohm resistor. The current is flowing in the other direction for normal operation. I used Rb=2K , Rr=1R5, R0=(5-10)k, Cb=141pF, H toroid 18 Winds bifilar 40mmOD 24mmID 17mmH,Q1 BC548,6V Battery,5mm Red LED. The voltage across the battery is 6.3V. I was thinking of using three 2.5 V 50Farad super capacitors and see if I can get the circuit the self run. Thanks
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #101 on: June 01, 2011, 06:02:17 AM
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Reply #102 on: June 01, 2011, 07:39:50 AM
Hi Dr Jones. I have replicated your Circuit. I have attached Pictures and the Calculator for others to use if they wish. I am getting COP = 2.5 at the moment. I think It may be a measurement error, but have checked three times and get the same result. Its early days for me and I will stay reserved at this point on my findings as there could be an error on my part. My goal is to make this self run like I mentioned but have not been able to make this happen yet. I still think there is a 50/50 chance, but am convinced that some serious work will be needed to get a Bi-Polar Switch like Ron Cole/John Bedini's to make this run itsself. All the best, and I will post more soon.
Chris P.S. My components are slightly modified compared to the schematic. Sense resistor = 1.5 Ohm. Load Resistor was changed also.I will post more information soon. Sense Resistor Power Calculator.zip (46.89 KB - downloaded 6 times.)
Chris's Circuit Replication V2.png (20.97 KB, 1012x559 - viewed 207 times.)
Input.png (100.6 KB, 694x438 - viewed 199 times.)
Output.png (81.08 KB, 692x432 - viewed 199 times.)

Logged
JouleSeeker


Reply #103 on: June 01, 2011, 08:05:27 AM
Quote from: hyiq on June 01, 2011, 07:39:50 AM Hi Dr Jones. I have replicated your Circuit. I have attached Pictures and the Calculator for others to use if they wish. I am getting COP = 2.5 at the moment. I think It may be a measurement error, but have checked three times and get the same result. Its early days for me and I will stay reserved at this point on my findings as there could be an error on my part. My goal is to make this self run like I mentioned but have not been able to make this happen yet. I still think there is a 50/50 chance, but am convinced that some serious work will be needed to get a Bi-Polar Switch like Ron Cole/John Bedini's to make this run itsself. All the best, and I will post more soon. Chris P.S. My components are slightly modified compared to the schematic. Sense resistor = 1.5 Ohm. Load Resistor was changed also.I will post more information soon.
Thank so much for your work on this, Chris. Cool -- and great diagrams also. I certainly understand your wish to remain reserved at this stage. As I said, my claim is also "evidence for" at this stage, not "proof of" super-efficiency. (I prefer the term "super-efficiency", n>1, to "overunity"; OU carries a lot of negative baggage unfortunately). It occurs to me that you may be the first, or one of the first, to build a "proof of", and a "self-sustaining device" would do the job admirably. I believe you will have to first rectify the output before you can feed it back into the input. I have an idea how to do this; but I'm going to leave this to your ingenuity at this time (because I think your solution might be better than mine anyway, and partly because I'm going on the road with my wife right away). My sincere thanks and best wishes, Steven Jones
PS -- may I quote you to others? and display your well-done schematic diagram?
Tudi


Reply #105 on: June 01, 2011, 09:08:21 AM
Quote .. if you look at Gadgetmall's circuits...one of his JT designs will run over a year 24/7 on a single AA so that is a long time to test. ..
I know most people are here for science and progress. Some of us are here to change the world. That means if i can make my home lightning with 1 AA battery. Then to hell with measurement precision and errors. It simply works for a specific purpuse. Who cares if instead 10kHz your led will light up with 30Hz ? The point is that is working in a way that seems to be the same for you, but it consumes much less energy. It does not need to loop back forever, even if improved efficiency by a considerable amount it is a great achievement. No need to kill progress just because it is not exactly what you wanted to have. Meantime, carry on with research Just don't get lost in the details like companies that get lost in the paper work before releasing a technology to "market".
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #105 on: June 01, 2011, 09:08:21 AM
Sponsored links:
Pirate88179

Moderator Hero Member
Posts: 5253 Attempting to know the unknown

Reply #106 on: June 01, 2011, 09:27:48 AM
Tudi: I agree. I use JT lighting circuits to light most of my home most of the time. I use dead batteries that others give to me instead of tossing out so, they cost me nothing for the light. (Free light) Efficiency is the main thing and if we get so efficient that it goes OU, so much the better. Anyway, I have always been fascinated by the JT circuit as most on here know by now. Bill
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #106 on: June 01, 2011, 09:27:48 AM
jmmac

New_User Posts: 5

Reply #107 on: June 01, 2011, 11:03:38 AM
Hi Chris, I too am trying to replicate the circuit but with less success than you. Regarding your measurements, i'm not sure i understood your method but, you can only calculate the output power multiplying current * voltage if these quantities are 100% constant over time (DC). Otherwise you'll get wrong results.
Regards, Jaime
Quote from: hyiq on June 01, 2011, 07:39:50 AM Hi Dr Jones. I have replicated your Circuit. I have attached Pictures and the Calculator for others to use if they wish. I am getting COP = 2.5 at the moment. I think It may be a measurement error, but have checked three times and get the same result. Its early days for me and I will stay reserved at this point on my findings as there could be an error on my part. My goal is to make this self run like I mentioned but have not been able to make this happen yet. I still think there is a 50/50 chance, but am convinced that some serious work will be needed to get a Bi-Polar Switch like Ron Cole/John Bedini's to make this run itsself. All the best, and I will post more soon. Chris P.S. My components are slightly modified compared to the schematic. Sense resistor = 1.5 Ohm. Load Resistor was changed also.I will post more information soon.
Logged
bolt


Reply #108 on: June 01, 2011, 11:05:42 AM
Absolutely correct. The road to OU starts with energy savings but they need to be applied to real life practical use to be of any benefit. Alike RV motors big heavy 3 phase motors can run on as little as 10 watts to spin a 5 HP motor. So it means nothing to demonstrate 10mw IN and 80mW out UNLESS you put that to good use. LED lighting is of course a useful application. There are many things that are OU and its no surprise the JT is OU and i have been saying this for years more often than not when looking at scope shots. I personally not too impressed lighting an LED for a year on one AA battery. My smoke detector runs for 3 years on a pp3 battery and beeps and flashes an LED for another 6
months LOL. This is 25 year old technology. So use the JT principle and scale it up bigger. Is it real? well yes of course see Ismael electric Car MEG DOT and DOE engineers tested to a COP of 2.7 running a 1000 watt load! But OU is not Looping too many people do not understand the difference. Call it energy savings first. For the same load your battery will last say 4 to 8 times longer. If EVERYONE used this technology that is around 1/2 Trillion dollars a years not going into the battery market. That is sure to upset a few people. You can get the same use full size transformers and a lot more power. Looping is a different matter requires a COP > 2 plus system losses. In practice unlikely to loop under COP 3 and tuning and critical RF application of load matching is essential to prevent OU being lost. So don't spend too much time arguing about scope shots you never convince anyone that way and the arguing has been going on for many many years of how to measure IN and OUT see Ainsley Heater for that 1000 page thread saga. What changes things is when everyone just starts to use this technology then its just accepted as the norm like using microwave ovens was one of the biggest changes for technophobics in the home of the last century. Focus your energies into getting a bit more power out and applying it to real life applications then you will see the market sit up and take notice.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #108 on: June 01, 2011, 11:05:42 AM
Hoppy


Reply #109 on: June 01, 2011, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: hyiq on June 01, 2011, 08:28:32 AM
Hi Dr Jones, I think at this stage my replication has too much room for error, so for this reason, may be best if I work a bit more on this first. Certianly after i get more results, that would be no problem. All the best Chris
Chris, Using your test setup with my Rigol DS1052E scope taking average voltage readings across 1R resistors, I get 3.5mA I/P and just under 1.0mA O/P. In power terms this gives an efficiency of around 30%. My Rb is 56K and running frequency is 2.63MHz. Load is 1K. Battery supply voltage 3.0V. Hoppy
Logged
bolt


Reply #110 on: June 01, 2011, 12:50:39 PM
Quote from: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 11:38:16 AM Chris, Using your test setup with my Rigol DS1052E scope taking average voltage readings across 1R resistors, I get 3.5mA I/P and just under 1.0mA O/P. In power terms this gives an efficiency of around 30%. My Rb is 56K and running frequency is 2.63MHz. Load is 1K. Battery supply voltage 3.0V. Hoppy
But did you measure the o/p voltage? You must measure volts and amps. In OU phase shift creates reactive power increases voltage drastically! ZPE enters equation where current node is Zero not nothing while voltage is max. High impedance load will appreciate this extra voltage @ 1mA could easy be 25v RMS from 3v supply. Larger unmatched loads creates phase shifts losses back below Over-unity. This explains why high impedance florescent lights easy lit full brightness as OU JT far brighter than normal DC i/p.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #110 on: June 01, 2011, 12:50:39 PM
Sponsored links:
Tudi


Reply #111 on: June 01, 2011, 01:00:57 PM
it's amazing how many people talk about RC components of a circuit while L is just characterized by number of turns most of the time. I think that L can have at least as much details as a C. How about wire resistance ? Inductance, Ferite type, size of the cavity, wire length, wire diameter, distance between wires, the way the coil was made ( wire direction ), how compact is your coil, the speed and amount of characteristic changes of the wire when gets heated..... To get a perfect resonance you need to match quite a few details. No wonder most people are unable to reproduce devices if description is like : you need a 2 wire coil I think it would be very wise if next step would be to create additional 2 circuits like the first one by Joulseeker and try to use the output of circuit 1 to feed circuit 2 and 3. This would help regarding scaling details ( sum of output power...) + might
reveal small details regarding the build that might have got missed in the description.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #111 on: June 01, 2011, 01:00:57 PM
Hoppy


Reply #112 on: June 01, 2011, 01:06:20 PM
Post deleted Hoppy

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #112 on: June 01, 2011, 01:06:20 PM
Hoppy


Reply #113 on: June 01, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: bolt on June 01, 2011, 12:50:39 PM But did you measure the o/p voltage? You must measure volts and amps. In OU phase shift creates reactive power increases voltage drastically! ZPE enters equation where current node is Zero not nothing while voltage is max. High impedance load will appreciate this extra voltage @ 1mA could easy be 25v RMS from 3v supply. Larger unmatched loads
creates phase shifts losses back below Over-unity. This explains why high impedance florescent lights easy lit full brightness as OU JT far brighter than normal DC i/p.
I've re-taken measurements and now have 1.80mV across the output shunt and 2V across the 1K load resistor, so the two match up reasonably well with the difference being down to the accuracy of my 1R shunt which has 5% tolerance. Yes, 25V RMS at a particular load but not at 1K with my setup. Hoppy
Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 02:50:43 PM by Hoppy Logged
Free Energy
Reply #113 on: June 01, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
jmmac

New_User Posts: 5

Reply #114 on: June 01, 2011, 02:20:58 PM
Hoppy, If you eliminate the 1 Ohm resistor and keep the 1K load, then you can just measure the voltage drop in the load and calculate the current and power. You should have more accurate values this way. Jaime
Quote from: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 02:07:17 PM I've re-taken measurements and now have 1.80mV across the output shunt and 200mV across the 1K load resistor, so the two match up reasonably well with the difference being down to the accuracy of my 1R shunt which has 5% tolerance. Yes, 25V RMS at a particular load but not at 1K with my setup.
Hoppy
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #114 on: June 01, 2011, 02:20:58 PM
Sponsored links:
yssuraxu_697


Reply #115 on: June 01, 2011, 02:36:42 PM
BTW it may just be an electromagnetic flywheel. In this case it is no problem to record "OU" in the flywheeling part but attempts to extract from there at greater rate than input will fail. At least when attempting to extract exact same form of energy. Unless there is "unconventional" input from material itself in transistor, core or cap.
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #115 on: June 01, 2011, 02:36:42 PM
Hoppy


Reply #116 on: June 01, 2011, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: jmmac on June 01, 2011, 02:20:58 PM
Hoppy, If you eliminate the 1 Ohm resistor and keep the 1K load, then you can just measure the voltage drop in the load and calculate the current and power. You should have more accurate values this way. Jaime
Yes, that's the way I would normally measure but I'm just comparing the two.
Hoppy
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #116 on: June 01, 2011, 02:55:25 PM
JouleSeeker


Reply #117 on: June 01, 2011, 07:02:26 PM
Glad people are doing replications and tests. I just wrote an email to someone beginning a replication that may be of use to others as well:
Quote ....very glad you're looking at this little circuit. I would ask that on your scope you look at the Power waveforms, Pin and Pout, and then tune the circuit as well as you can to minimize Pin. Pin waveform should appear with a strong AC component, fluctuating around zero. "Tuning" means adjusting the variable resistors in the circuit -- and the resistor to the transistor base -- so as to try to get the
MEAN value of Pin to be close to zero. The Pout waveform should show spikes of power, which remain on "one side of the zero line" when the Pin waveform is adjusted to average to near-zero. That's what I've observed, and that's how I have evidence for (not "proof" of) superefficiency, Pout/Pin > 1. Thanks for taking a look at this!
Steven
Logged
Montec

New_User Posts: 34

Reply #118 on: June 01, 2011, 08:14:35 PM
Hello JouleSeeker Measuring output power using current is one way to measure power. It does not matter whether the current is DC, pulsed DC or AC. The same equation I2*R=P holds true. The trick is to split a current into two equal currents. Taking an output across a load resister and passing it through a FWBR and charging a capacitor will give a maximum voltage across the capacitor. Using a variable resistor across the capacitor you can drain the energy (current) in the capacitor to a steady state voltage reading (across the variable resistor) that equals 0.707 times the max voltage you first measured. This is a half power measurement. The power dissipated by the variable resistor is equal to the power dissipated by the load resistor. The load resistor dissipates power from a non-sinusoidal current and the variable resistor dissipates power from a (nearly) DC current. A larger capacitor will make the DC smother at the expense of a longer measuring time. (Charge and discharge times increase.)
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #118 on: June 01, 2011, 08:14:35 PM
jmmac

New_User Posts: 5

Reply #119 on: June 01, 2011, 08:39:29 PM
Prof. Jones, I'm trying to replicate your circuit without success. Can you please give some informations in order to help me? - What's the voltage drop in your LED (in a dc circuit)? - Did you use a normal ferrite toroid? - I don't have 2N2222 transistors. Can you tell me if your circuit works as well with a BC547, BC547A or 2N3904 ? Thank you. Hope you're having a nice time. Regards, Jaime
Quote from: JouleSeeker link=topic=10773.msg289174#msg289174 date=1306947746 Glad people are doing replications and tests. I just wrote an email to someone beginning a replication that may be of use to others as well: Steven
mscoffman


Reply #120 on: June 01, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
@All Heres the thing , expensive instrumentation doesnt have perfect input impedance - it has perfect compromise input impedances, so that specifically designed probes do not ring. The power bandwidth transfer function of the scope input and probes are stuck in an out the way place by the manufacture. But a correctly designed amplifier circuit can still detect the instruments transfer impedance and change the its signal to fool the instrument into giving incorrect readings. Like running your electric meter backwards by changing the character of the signal to it. The way the electronics technician looks at it is, if attaching the instrument changes the circuits behavior in any way, the instrument is useless because the circuit may be changing its behavior and causing incorrect readings he says that; The circuit is behaving in an unstable way, it has insufficient operating margins. This effect is enhanced if two input probes are going into the same instrument. Because sensing one is enough to create a signal that can fool the other. So you cant really design a circuit by evolving it. Very simply circuits need e-cap simulation so you call be sure what they are actually doing. Ie their behavior is not targeting the instrumentation rather then behaving in a way that there were designed. Designing a circuit with adequate margins so they are stable under application of standard instrument input loads is generally doable, as are special techniques of using isolated instrumentation amplifiers. Large scale systems often have sufficient internal gain already as a margin. Its the very simple circuits that need help. The best way to solve this is to design a circuit that will have the behavior that you want to see. In this case producing overunity energy then guaranteeing that its behavior does not change when you attach instrumentation. I suggested using RC time constants out of precision identical components. But dont worry, you will find it extremely difficult to design a circuit that actually produces overunity energy. But at least you wont be fooling yourself with instrumentation error.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #120 on: June 01, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
Sponsored links:
Hoppy


Reply #121 on: June 01, 2011, 10:31:08 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on June 01, 2011, 07:02:26 PM Glad people are doing replications and tests. I just wrote an email to someone beginning a replication that may be of use to others as well: Steven
The 'Spikes of power' I see in this replication are of very short time duration and are significant in their voltage level, rather than true power / energy level. Measuring the mean voltage level across a load resistor fed from a rectified and smoothed output is all we need to make a reasonable comparison of output power / energy v input power / energy measured across a suitable shunt resistor at the supply side. Failing to get close to unity using a simple and effective test setup as shown by Chris does not IMO warrant more time and effort using more sophisticated measuring techniques. John Bedini's various devices can demonstrate a huge amount of 'spiking' but none are overunity in themeselves by his own admission. Hoppy
Logged
Free Energy
Reply #121 on: June 01, 2011, 10:31:08 PM
JouleSeeker


Reply #122 on: June 01, 2011, 10:40:27 PM
@jmm -- I intersperse responses in bold:

Quote from: jmmac on June 01, 2011, 08:39:29 PM Prof. Jones, I'm trying to replicate your circuit without success. "without success" -- do you mean it won't light up the LED, or what? Can you please give some informations in order to help me? - What's the voltage drop in your LED (in a dc circuit)? I put the LED in a dc circuit, Vbatt = 2.6VV-LED = 1.64VV-across 979ohm resistor = 0.96VNot sure this is too helpful, though. See this post for details of how the voltages across the LED read out in this DUT: [/] Quote []DVM 6(black)-7(red) +0.6V (DSO: Vpp 3.4V) Dim red[/]
[]See here for the circuit and labels: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=853.0 - Did you use a normal ferrite toroid? Yes, as stated in the OUR thread -- see URL above:[/] Quote []Ferrite toroid 1"OD, 0.5"ID, 7/16" high, electronic goldmine G6683[/]
- I don't have 2N2222 transistors. Can you tell me if your circuit works as well with a BC547, BC547A or 2N3904 ? Haven't tried these out, sorry. --Steve Thank you. Hope you're having a nice time. Regards, Jaime [/][/b]
[] @mscoffman-- agreed, and that is why I seek multiple testing methods and state that the Tek 3032 results are only "evidence of" at this stage.
[/]
Logged
xee2


Reply #123 on: June 01, 2011, 11:06:28 PM
Quote from: JouleSeeker on June 01, 2011, 03:05:37 AM Could I ask you to draw up in this fashion my hand-drawn circuit shown in post #2 of this thread??
Done.
Steven Jones circuit.jpg (61.58 KB, 768x576 - viewed 297 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Reply #123 on: June 01, 2011, 11:06:28 PM
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Reply #124 on: June 01, 2011, 11:37:52 PM
Hi All, Simply putting a Light Emitting Diode accross the input V+ and V - and output V+ and V- shows My Version of the circuit is not COP > 1. There is a visable difference in Light emmited.
I still think this circuit can go COP > 1 and will change resistors and Caps to keep adjusting. Also Last night I pulled the circuit down and rebuilt and got different frequency so there is something out of the norm going on here. Will report more soon. All the Best Chris
Logged
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Reply #125 on: Today at 12:27:59 AM
Hi All, Just an fyi, Picture is attached. LED Test shows less power on the output. Considering there is 1.5 Ohms inbetween the Primary LED and the Test secondary LED this test is not the best test. All the best Chris
LED Test v1.jpg (384.64 KB, 1133x852 - viewed 257 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
Sponsored links:
JouleSeeker


Great! thanks, Xee2. Hope you don't mind my showing it to people...?
Keep up the good work, Chris. When measuring Pout, also try looking at the power dumped on the resistor Ro, with the LED replaced by a diode (1n4148) I used, in the same direction. Back to the evaluation of Pin using a capacitor in lieu of the battery: We need a capacitor that will drain slowly, but not leak significantly when disconnected -- measuring over a smaller V drop on the cap. And compare THAT Power result with the DMM measurement! (I asked this of Itsu on the OUR thread.) Today, I tried my own replication of the DUT and used a 10F cap to do the measurement: Over 6.0 minutes, 2.39 to 2.34 volts => 3.2 mW +/- due to the small V change. Over 40 minutes, 1.661 V to 1.490 V => 1.1 mW. (someone check my math?) I just report the results as I see 'em. Rb again @ 51Kohms -- are you doing this, Itsu?? This is a simple test IMO, to see if YOUR replication is in the same ballpark as mine. I note also that when the cap is first charged, one has to wait for it to "settle down" -- I did this. I have no opportunity to test this replication with the Tek 3032, until I return from my trip.
Logged
Free Energy
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

I have been around for a while now, mostly lurking. I used to be a part of many forums but for the following reason I stopped: Reading through the posts, its easy to see who is doing the work to see if we can replicate this or not! Some just do nothing but criticise shoot people down of debunk the Circuit out right before even trying one simple experiment. For those of you that are "So knowledgeable" put the circuit together and share your results instead of being so negatively destructive. It will take you all of 5 minutes? Whats wrong with you? If youre really so smart? Why the debate on Free Energy? Nature has been doing it for billions of years! Oh to be constructive... Chris
Logged
Free Energy
onthecuttingedge2005

Hero Member Posts: 1045 Without life, there is no meaning.

Everything 'in' Nature has a cost, what you deem as free actually had a cost and still does. that is just the way nature is.
Logged
Free Energy
JouleSeeker


"Overunity" carries baggage, connoting energy out of nowhere, implying a violation of the laws of Physics. Don't believe in violating laws of physics at all, so I try to avoid the term OU -and suggest instead "super-efficiency", meaning n = (electrical power out) / (electrical power in) > 1. n > 1, super-efficiency -- allowing for anomalous energy input to the device. (And I favor "dark energy" personally -- 70% of all the mass-energy in the universe is this little-understood stuff, as I posted earlier.) I avoid "COP" in favor of "n" -- same reason, baggage carried with the term COP >1 going with violating laws of physics. And finally, I avoid "free energy" because it also connotes now energy out of nowhere (google it). IMHO, something like Novel Electrodynamic Energy would be a much better term. All, IMHO. TERMinology in a nascent field of science is critically important.
Logged
Free Energy
Sponsored links:
xee2


Quote from: JouleSeeker on Today at 12:47:17 AM Great! thanks, Xee2. Hope you don't mind my showing it to people...?
No problem. Use as you like. If you want changes, let me know.

Logged
Free Energy
nul-points


hello Steven i've taken up a couple of your suggestions for related investigation:a) increased base feedback Cap & transformer inductance for reduced repetition rate; b) arranged circuit to suit feedback of o/p energy to supply.
a) has been achieved with the use of a 0.1uF ceramic capacitor and a transformer constructed from approx 2x 150 turns of 3x0.2mm Litz wound on 50x10mm OD ferrite rod, enclosed in a ferrite tube (approx 35x30mm OD) the waveform modifies to a 12.5us pulse (+ similarly dimensioned coil-field collapse, immediately following in anti-phase), with an approx 345Hz repetition rate (see trace below for AC waveform at emitter)
b) has been achieved by inverting your generic common-collector oscillator, using a PNP transistor, to enable easier re-direction of the o/p current path into the required energy-storage components i realise that i'm now investigating a circuit which is different to your circuit 'specifics', but i believe that it still retains the essence of your design 'generics' and therefore it should provide a relevant test-bed for observing variations of harvesting and recycling the o/p (see below for schematic of inverted, looped, srj1-family circuit)
the circuit is powered by two well-depleted AAA NiMH cells; these produced a total of 2.05V off-load, which has dropped to approx 1.5V in-circuit this battery is connected to the positive emitter supply (which i'll label Vee), via an inductor of a few mH the broad o/p recycling strategy has been to replace the emitter LED with a schottky diode and direct the current path away from the emitter into a buffer capacitor this capacitor is charging up to approx 2.9V the buffer capacitor is connected to Vee via an inductor of a few mH and a red LED the LED is not bright, but it is easily visible the current draw from the battery is approx. 50uA (largely due to the very small mark-space ratio)
if time permits, i intend to monitor the battery terminal voltage trend for different configurations of the o/p recycling arrangement i hope to post occasional progress reports; if any results suggest a further mod, please call it out and i'll try to include that in the 'schedule' PS i believe it's 'safe' to use CoP as an alternative to your 'n' - i understand it's an accepted measure of system performance, used for example in heat-pump technology (where CoP = 4, say, is not an unusual value) all the best np [Apologies for rather large sized images - the 'scope trace loses resolution badly, when resized any smaller!]
inverted_looped_srj1.gif (4.7 KB, 619x434 - viewed 203 times.)
110601_inverted_looped_sjr_Ve_ac.gif (15.24 KB, 800x600 - viewed 197 times.)

Logged
Free Energy
JouleSeeker


NP -- I am studying your circuit with interest, and learning.

Quote i realise that i'm now investigating a circuit which is different to your circuit 'specifics', but i believe that it still retains the essence of your design 'generics' and therefore it should provide a relevant test-bed for observing variations of harvesting and recycling the o/p (see below for schematic of inverted, looped, srj1-family circuit)
I agree with what you are doing here and look forward to your results. Thanks for taking a close look at this, and for innovations in "harvesting and recycling the [output]" which is the most difficult part of the evaluation of the circuit. Best wishes for your success, Steven
Logged
TinselKoala


I will remind you again: Power is not energy. Power multiplication is easy. If you measure, for example, my TinselKoil using the same techniques you are
using here, you will find that it draws an "average" of 7 amps at 120 VAC from the wall, and the secondary arc is 8-10 amps at over 30,000 volts "average". Put that in your COP and smoke it. I note that 5 or more entire pages have gone by in this thread and only a single person has said anything about measuring ENERGY in and out in your circuit.... besides me, that is. I have put up a couple videos showing how POWER measurements are very susceptible to artifacts like stray inductances and measuring points, in a Joule Thief essentially equivalent to the circuit here under test. I also show how an ENERGY INTEGRAL is obtained and how that integral, when properly computed, is less sensitive to these artifacts. Mean power during a time period.... can be considered an energy value ONLY if properly measured and computed. Have you learned nothing from the Ainslie affair? The proper way to compute energy out is to do it with an oscilloscope that can handle the math, OR.... like I said: trace it out and count up the area under the instantaneous power curve. As long as you are talking about power in and power out and mean or average power.... you are clearly barking up the wrong tree. To try to show COP ratios using power you need much more sophisticated apparatus than you are using, something like the Clarke-Hess power meters, or calorimetry. Please... just for fun.... do an actual energy balance measurement on your Joule Thief.
Logged
Free Energy
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Hi All, @TinselKoala I agree, its important we get this right to insure we know what we are dealing with. Like I said the only real way is to make itself run. This is why I think when we post a Circuit Schematic we should get in the habbit of showing measuring points and component values better. My current circuit is attached with all points clearly marked. Please can everyone give me your feed back. If I have something wrong let me know and I will correct and re-post. Also Probe polarity settings. I have used DC polarity on the Voltage side, but have used both DC and AC for the Cuttent Probe settings. My Scope is set to "Mean" measurement over time. I am not measuring RMS or PK-PK. So far, I think a sort of Impedance matching seems to be going on. John Bedini said this some time back and I did not understand what he meant. So lets set some standards to follow, constructively help in moving forward to trying to understand this and start scaling this up when we do. all the best Chris
nul-points


Quote from: JouleSeeker on Today at 07:27:18 AM NP -- I am studying your circuit with interest, and learning. I agree with what you are doing here and look forward to your results. Thanks for taking a close look at this, and for innovations in "harvesting and recycling the [output]" which is the most difficult part of the evaluation of the circuit. Best wishes for your success, Steven
thanks for your encouragement, Steven, appreciated! it seems that you're comfortable with the fact that i'm not attempting a replication here, merely looking at one possible approach for you to try, if you wish, when you feedback the o/p of your circuit to the supply hence, i'm not (yet) listing component values and probe points, etc i tried a few 'variations on a theme' with the feedback arrangement, before leaving the system to run overnight, so the battery depleted some more, as a result of these preliminary tests (the new pulse width is approx 35uS, at 182Hz repetition) i could see from the voltage decrease over just a few minutes, that there was little effect from the feedback with some configs, but one or two looked better than others, so i settled on one (as shown above, but with an additional schottky, D2, in reverse polarity across 0V and Vee) to leave for the overnight run at 03:00: Vbatt: 1.22V Vcap: 2.39V at 08:15: Vbatt: 1.22V Vcap:2.38V i'm including a couple of photos just to give you a general idea of my setup also to try & show a very general indication of the illumination (using a 'HiBrite' type LED, nothing particularly special) difficult to catch on camera, the LED is actually red but in the photo it appears to have a pinkish colour - however, the light level is about right for its visibility against the morning sun in the room i'll leave the setup alone now, and just monitor the supply voltage trend, for a few days continuous operation
i hope you get some quality time on your trip - and plenty of opportunities to enjoy some of the good things we've been blessed with in this world around us!
all the best np
inverted_looped_srj1_zoom.jpg (48.6 KB, 400x300 - viewed 271 times.)
inverted_looped_srj1_rig.jpg (42 KB, 400x300 - viewed 270 times.)

Last Edit: Today at 11:31:12 AM by nul-points Logged
Free Energy
Sponsored links:
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Hi All, Apologies, to conform to Dr Jones Circuit I have moved the Variable Resistor (in my case a Potentiometer) to the negative rail and not on the positive rail. All the Best. Chris
Logged
Free Energy
jmmac

New_User
Posts: 5

Prof. Jones,
Quote from: JouleSeeker on June 01, 2011, 10:40:27 PM "without success" -- do you mean it won't light up the LED, or what?
The transistor oscillates and the LED lights up but only when Ro is around 0 Ohm (very bright). The frequency and waveforms seems different than yours. Once i measured around 200KHz (visually in the scope). The frequency changes if i change RB (is that supposed to happen?) The circuit is very unstable. I must buy some 2N2222, red leds and built an inductance meter to confirm the coil. When you have a couple hours free, a thing you could do to help people replicate exactly your circuit is to create a "replication for dummies" video or document! Starting with an empty bread board and components and gradually mount them and measure the waveforms and do all kinds of checking. This seems to be a difficult circuit to replicate, the smallest detail probably changes the way it works. Regards, Jaime
Logged
Hoppy


Reply #138 on: Today at 12:49:27 PM
Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 09:18:36 AM
I note that 5 or more entire pages have gone by in this thread and only a single person has said anything about measuring ENERGY in and out in your circuit.... besides me, that is.
TK, I don't think anyone would disagree with your valid comments. The importance of measuring energy levels rather than power has been well driven home in the past, especially by Bedini. However, comparitive average power measurements are good enough IMO to show whether this circuit is working close to unity and as I see it, this is what people are doing in the first instance to 'get a feel for it'. I see no point in going further unless there is a clear indication of super efficiency. I'm now happy from my replication that this circuit is nowhere near unity, so will not be continuing. I do hope that others can satisfy you with their measuring techniques and validate Steven's claim of overunity with their replications. Hoppy
Logged
Free Energy
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Hi All, I have some more results. I have rebuilt the circuit quite a few times and am getting good results on the measurements so far. I have improved my output readings so far as to say I believe I have replicated Dr Jones Circuit and results. I have used a JFet, model J6910, from Fairchild. Its a salvage from an old TV. Any way, please point out any mistakes you can see and I will be happy to correct and remeasure. My Probe on voltage is set to DC. My Probe on Sense Resistor Current is set to AC and this is the same for both input and output
measurements.
All the Best.
Chris
Circuit.jpg (399.65 KB, 992x745 - viewed 232 times.)
Input Scope.jpg (318.34 KB, 992x745 - viewed 230 times.)
Input.png (61.63 KB, 710x451 - viewed 230 times.)
Output Scope.jpg (328.87 KB, 992x745 - viewed 231 times.)
Output.png (61.34 KB, 705x446 - viewed 228 times.)

Logged
hyiq

New_User Posts: 14

Hi All, P.S. My load is obviously the LED. I use this as I dont have two scopes. I tune to get the lowest input power I can but get the LED as bright as I can. Still there is room for measurement error here. All the best. Chris
Logged
Free Energy
Sponsored links:
Tudi


Quote from: nul-points on Today at 02:20:18 AM ...
About your scope shot null-points. In ZPE theory you almost got it working. The idea is to somehow break the chain of that increasing oscilation before it starts decreasing. There is some reason it started increasing in peak values and some reason that it started decreasing peak values ( -4 us ). In theory if you manage to tap the output just right, and really use up the output not just loop it back or try to store in a cap that changes it's parameters as it starts to fill up, you should be able to maintain that high peak oscilation state. Ofc, easy to say, hard to do As i seen it in Joulseeker video, this oscilation phase( rise -> fall ) is much longer then in yours. Maybe this is the factor of the OU output ? Hard to do it but : if you manage to loop back the output in a way to be in resonance to the next output, it should amplify the peak values every time it loops ( untill everything falls apart ). Ex : loop 1 will generate 1 peak value of 2x amplification at moment 2us with duration of 1us. If you manage to loop back output so that this this peaked value will get peaked again, you should get a 4x(+2x peak from input) peak at same 2us with duration of 1us. But if you do not do it right, then you will have a scope shot of either a consecutive peaks with same size, or some random peaks ( noise like ), with larger and smaller peaks due to the harmonics of the signal ( loop x in harmonic with loop y + loop z with loop k.... ) Since it is insanely hard to get such sincronization to get a harmonics at every
loop. Just producing lots of lots of peaks should increase the chance to get an increasing amplification. ps: this is just peaking the voltage, not increasing energy ?
Logged
Free Energy
Tudi


deleted. accidental double post

Logged
Free Energy
xee2


@ hyiq If you are using R3 to measure input current, I think it should be moved to be in series with the battery so that it is only measuring the battery current. And I think you should remove VR2 since it is shorted out by the grounds.
NOTE: Where you have it, R3 is only measuring a small part of the current coming into circuit since most of the current is going into the output ground.
Chris's Circuit Replication .jpg (84.69 KB, 1190x728 - viewed 174 times.)
Last Edit: Today at 06:05:21 PM by xee2 Logged
Free Energy
nul-points


Quote from: Tudi on Today at 01:35:17 PM [...] ps: this is just peaking the voltage, not increasing energy ?
thanks for your comments Tudi as i mentioned above, this isn't intended to be a replication to confirm Steven's results - i'm just investigating one possible method for returning the o/p to the supply obviously, if my circuit begins to show any signs that it also benefits from the same excess energy** which Steven measures, then it will justify closer attention (** that's energy as in (((Sum of all instantaneous(V * i))/ No. data points) * t), for folks that haven't read up on Steven's test methodology) ...not sure if your question i've quoted above is just rhetorical, or if you're directing it at me? if it's to me, could you expand a bit, on what 'this' is? thanks
@all
just discovered a little earlier that the more depleted of the two NiMHs which i'v been using in the circuit described above, had started getting charged by the less depleted cell and had flipped polarity, with a small reverse voltage of approx 25mV so i've removed that cell and the circuit is now working from a single cell at approx 1.25V this is pretty close to the previous conditions, so the LED brightness appears unaffected i'll continue monitoring the cell voltage trend with this new setup
thanks np
Logged
Free Energy
Sponsored links:
Tudi


@null-points : was more rhetorical about the peaks. If you manage to get harmonics with looping signals continuesly increasing the peaks, to respect the energy conservation theory, the duration of the peaks should decrease at every loop. But if they decrease, then in order to get a harmonics, your circuit should
get "shorter" at every loop for the same signal OR you will get the harmonics at different intervals 2x, 3x, 4x...which practically would lead to a totally random signal output regarding peaks ( which most people do get ). The interesting question is, what is the shortest peek length this circuit can handle ? What happens after then length would want to further diminish ? (I'm almost shore there is a theory for this) My guess is that the peak length gets so small it should get passed undisturbed in the circuit and the value of it eaten up by the R or C in every loop.
Logged
Free Energy
nul-points


Quote from: Tudi on Today at 03:12:51 PM @null-points : was more rhetorical about the peaks. [...]
ok, thanks Tudi yes, there's not much chance of the o/p peaks in my circuit starting to 'overlap', compared to Steven's results with his component values - i've slowed my circuit's pulse o/p down to approx 200Hz with only a 6% mark-space ratio it sounds like a system would need to have good stability to 'synch' as you described, and i noticed (as did Jaime with his build?) that even at my lower operating frequency, the 'breadboarded' circuit is very sensitive to stray capacitance effects
interesting ideas - let's hear what Steven makes of them when he's back online thanks np
Logged
Free Energy
nul-points


Quote from: hyiq on Today at 12:59:59 PM Hi All, I have some more results. I have rebuilt the circuit quite a few times and am getting good results on the measurements so far. I have improved my output readings so far as to say I believe I have replicated Dr Jones Circuit and results. [...] All the Best. Chris
hi Chris
thanks for sharing your results with us, it's encouraging that they are supporting Steven's own results - the set of successful replications is growing!
BTW could you help those of us who have smaller displays on our computer systems? it would be very helpful if you could reduce the size of your images before posting, because wide images force all the text on every post on the page to require horizontal as well as the usual vertical scrolling in order to read all of each post a maximum width of around 800 pixels should still leave a suitable resolution for most images - and it should also allow folks with limited screen-width displays to be able to read the entire page just by scrolling down thanks in advance for your help with this
i meant to say above, nice clean build you have there - compared with my 'birdsnest' construction! all the best np
Logged
JouleSeeker


I appreciate all the good ideas and replications going on here. I've just had time to read over quickly before hitting the road. Will check back this evening, if the hotel has wifi...
Thanks nul-pts, good tests, and Chris and all. I like the way you guys jump in and get things done!

Steven E Jones Circuit Gives Evidence For 8x Overunity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steven E Jones Circuit Gives Evidence For 8x Overunity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. Steven E.

Jones' circuit gives evidence for 8x overunity

Instructions for the toroid winding. More info here:

What You Can Do

Directory:Electromagnetic Directory:Solid_State_Generators Directory:Les_Kraut More stories by Sterling D. Allan

Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only. on: 2011-05-20, 02:47:40

Reps should show ~same as first step.

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

------------------------------PhotKraPinY.pdf (2675.98 KB - downloaded 89 times.)

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

------------------------------JTSchemEMD.png (0 KB - downloaded 51 times.)

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Newbie Posts: 21 if i have to i will steal it !!

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Newbie Posts: 21 if i have to i will steal it !!

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Newbie Posts: 21 if i have to i will steal it !!

Position: Full Member Posts: 198

Position: Newbie Posts: 21 if i have to i will steal it !!

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Group: Administrator Posts: 1333 It's not as complicated as it may seem...

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Group: Administrator Posts: 1333 It's not as complicated as it may seem...

I'm currently on vacation. When I

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Newbie Posts: 28

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:16:39 by duff IP: [ Logged ]

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:41:06 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]

Position: Newbie Posts: 28

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:17:18 by duff IP: [ Logged ]

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:46:32 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]

Position: Newbie Posts: 28

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:17:43 by duff IP: [ Logged ]

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:39:41 by PhysicsProf IP: [ Logged ]

Position: Newbie Posts: 28

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:18:07 by duff IP: [ Logged ]

Position: Newbie Posts: 28

Last Edit: 2011-05-27, 05:18:31 by duff IP: [ Logged ]

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Position: Newbie Posts: 28

Group: Moderator Posts: 316

Position: Full Member Posts: 151

Position: Newbie Posts: 15

------------------------------DonL IP: [ Logged ]

Group: Moderator Posts: 316