Makes you wonder how can anybody claim anything regarding experimental measurement of power one way or another. This applies not only both to OU researchers and their critics but to any mainstream power measurement as well.

One thing is certain, OU is present in the standard theory of electricity but has been overlooked. The experimental claims are wanting and that's the problem.

Of course, we're not going to forget about theory no matter how much some who claim they know science would surmise.

The distance of displacement of a body of mass M from a position of rest when struck by another body of mass m is a measure of the work done by the striking body. This is well known (known even before 1900).

it is equally well-known scientifically that the potential energy of a body of mass m attracted by another body converts into equivalent amount of other energies (kinetic energy will suffice) when that body of mass m is allowed to approach freely the attracting body from a point of displacement. The maximum potential energy can be converted into its equivalent maximum kinetic energy when the body of mass m is let go from a point where the force of attraction is zero to the point of maximum attraction force. This is also well-known since even before 1900.

This maximum kinetic energy is a potential to do work. In this case we choose the work done by the body of mass m to be the displacement of a body of mass M when struck by the body of mass m when it possesses the maximum kinetic energy.

The common understanding, known since even before 1900, is that a magnet of mass m will always exhibit the same amount of maximum kinetic energy when attracted by another magnet, independent of the point from which it starts, provided the force at this starting point is zero.

The validity of this common understanding can be checked. Use the same billiard ball of mass M, always place it at a point where the attraction between the two magnets is maximum (where the minimum of the potential energy of the two magnets is), remove one of the magnets away from the other to a piont where the force of attraction is practically zero and let it go. If aligned properly, the billiard ball will be struck by the approaching magnet and will be displaced. Move the magnet to another position of zero force and repeat the above. Compare the distances traveled by the billiard ball.

Use different magnets for the experiment explained above and you will find that in many instances you will confirm what has already been know since even before the nineteen hundreds -- the work done by the magnet being attracted done on the billiard ball will be the same (the distance traveled by the billiard ball will always be the same) independent of where you release it from as long as the starting point is where the force of attraction is practically zero.

However, there will be instances, such as the one shown in my vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqXJbwpNRo where the energies produced from two different points of release are different. In this case the experiment shows that the integral of force over distance is different in the two cases. This means that the integral of the force over distance in a closed loop (the two magnets attracted, one of the magnets removed to a point where the force of attraction is zero, same magnet moved to another point where the force of attraction is zero and then let go) is not zero. Even though the fact that magnets are attracted and that the work to remove two attracted magnets away from each other equals the work done when they spontaneously go back to their initial state has been known since even before 1900 the fact of the non-zero integral value of the closed-loop integral has not been known. This is new to science.

I removed all additional wires and left it bare bones -- resistor and capacitor. Same thing. Input power comes out experimentally about an order of magnitude greater than the input power. Like I said, theoretically, at these conditions input power equals the output power (the theoretical discrepancy between these two powers is at different conditions).

There are two issues actually. The instant values of the voltage and the phase shift.

Now, of course I'm degaussing the current probe in absence of current, setting it to zero, with a deskew value 0.00s. Then, after applying current I'm waiting until 512 traces are averaged. The voltage probes (both the passive and the active) are also first zeroed, deskewed etc. in absence of current. So, that part I think is good.

Now, mind you, the current measurements should be OK since the output power, based only on the current measurements (and the resistance), come out practically coinciding with the theoretical output power.

As for the independent checking of the instantaneous voltage values I independently measure the source I use (the HP pulse generator) with a Keithley 2000 DMM and judging from the rms it also seems to be good. That is, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the voltage values. Besides, all three different ways of voltage measurement give coinciding results in terms of values of the voltage.

One other thing. It seems to me that the phase shift problem may be due to a slight delay in the attenuated probes due to the need the voltage to be recalculated. Probably the phase shift of the 1X probe is the correct one because the value does not need to be recalculated and therefore it appears in pair with the right time label, as it were. What do you think?

OK, I see Tektronix has a special add-on for precise deskewing probes used in power measurements: http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/tektronix/pdf/tekdpg.pdf So, now what? Spending more and more money for things they should've provided for to begin with? There should be some simple way to precisely deskew these probes. Otherwise, how can you ever be sure that your power data are accurate?

Here is an example of the offset voltage effect on overunity found experimentally in the RC circuit under study here. The voltage is measured by the 1X passive probe set at 0.00ns deskew value. The voltage amplitude is 4V. The main point here is to demonstrate that the OU found theoretically to be a function of the voltage offset is observed experimentally as well. It should be noted that the input and output power found by integration of the experimental data over one period practically coincides with the input and output power values found through averaging the instantaneous IV products over a period. That expected result is in contrast to what was calculated theoretically (cf. the theoretical data sheet uploaded earlier). The reason for the discrepancy in the theoretical calculation is still unclear. I'd put forth, however, that it is more likely that the processing of the experimental data yields the correct result in view of the fewer number of operations involved. There is also a discrepancy between the theoretical and the experimental intercept of the line shown in the figure which is due to the lack of proper equipment to set the exact deskew value. Nevertheless, the very fact that also the experiment shows voltage offset dependence of the OU as well as a negative value of the OU (facts found theoretically to be inherent in the very standard theory of electricity itself) furthers the conclusion that OU exists trivially but has been missed.

What is urgently needed now is to have independent parties repeat these elementary measurements and see if they can reproduce the results I got, indicating that production of excess energy is inherent in the basics of common electric circuits. So far this is the only finding which seems to confirm OU in electrical systems. No offense to anybody else doing research in other kinds of electrical circuits but so far I have seen no conclusive results from other studies proving OU.

hi Omni

how did you get on with the Borromeo research paper i uploaded for you - did you see any tie-ins with your RC network findings?

@nul-points,

The article you uploaded is a very interesting model study of a complex situation involving the stochastic behavior of a massless Brownian particle under the action of random noise as the driving signal and the effect of the resultant noise fed back into the system. Among other things, an unexpected asymmetry in the probablility of finding the particle in the 1D space is reported when these two noise signals act in concert and that may be thought of as a simulation of Maxwell automaton. Asymmetries such as this one are always fascinating and deserve special attention provided the details of the model and especially the numerical procedures correctly reflect the physicality of the situation. Of course, at present I have no way to check that in view of the complexity of the proposal. On the face of it seems intriguing to say the least.

Now, regarding the connection of the above model with the studies I posted, it isn't clear to me now exactly where there may be such. Notice,  in the case I'm observing I'm bound by  some strictly defined parameters, determined by the non-probabilistic nature of the theory of electricity laws I'm applying. Also, there is no recycled signal applied to the system in my case. Everything is quite straightforward in this respect and the outcome seems to be much simpler to interpret. In my case all seems to boil down to an unnoticed so far effect of the voltage offset, current in this case having naturally no such offset (comprising what I call a natural asymmetry), inducing an apparent additional phase shift causing in some cases energy to be returned to the source. As it happens, in most cases not only a power balance of an RC circuit is not considered but such circuit is observed in most cases  at zero voltage offset. That may be the reason why the effect I report might have been missed or maybe, in view of it being in violation of CoE, has simply been ignored as some kind of error the roots of which need not be explored further. Ubiquity of CoE is so firmly established in the mainstream that any sign of violating it is promptly dismissed as a sure error. There is no open mindedness in this respect at all even among scientist who claim to be open minded. I'm sure you know that's the biggest no-no in science no matter how strong the evidence. Not so with the second law, the generality of which has been doubted at one time or another even by the founders of thermodynamics.

Undoubtedly, the attitude towards the first law has to change as well if science is to maintain its integrity. Not only the second but also the first law has an experimental basis and, despite the claimed lack of experimental evidence against it thus far, it should not continue to be considered inviolable should firm evidence against it is found. In other words, the non-scientific practice to check the validity of the experimental results against the first law dogma (unjustifiably based only on so far approved experiments) should be abandoned and the true scientific method should be applied with respect to the experimental evidence.