Author Topic: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ? (Read 923552 times)

MarkE · « **Reply #1320 on:** August 11, 2014, 08:52:01 AM »

I believe you said that you are using thermocouples. A thermocouple presents a short circuit (milliOhms) to the data logger input. The thermocouple signal voltage is on the order of 10uV/C. If I am mistaken and you are using a thermistor then the sensor could present typically 2K - 10K Ohms at room temperature, and you can substitute an 1/8 W resistor of similar value to get your noise floor.

If you are no convinced then as an alternate: Feed the the thermocouple lead through the side of a styrofoam cup about 1/4 the way up from the bottom so that the sensor is suspended in air inside the cup. Cover the opening with tape. Put a couple of steel 1/4" or 1/2" nuts in the bottom of the cup as weights. You can use a paper cup in a pinch. Stack another cup inverted on top of the first cup and seal the edge with tape. Hook up the sensor to your data acquisition system and wait half an hour. Then capture 10s - 30s of readings. That will be your noise floor, sensor included.

nul-points · « **Reply #1321 on:** August 11, 2014, 08:52:55 PM »

no problem - i don't believe that i referred to the probe type in my previous posts

i found the high-precision resistor i was looking for at work (5KR) - i wanted something suitable to replace the thermistor sensor in the datalogger temperature probe

the graph included here shows the data for 2 channels on the datalogger: ambient temperature (degC) and an indication of the noise baseline on the temperature probe channel with a passive resistor connected

sampling-rate period is 5s, duration of data is approx 35 mins (Y-axis scale has been selected to give a similar range to previous graph)

MarkE · « **Reply #1322 on:** August 11, 2014, 09:43:07 PM »

Great, so the noise floor of the electronics is about +/-0.025 ^oC, +/-0.045 ^oF. I think the next step is to perform the styrofoam (or paper) cup test so that all the noise contributions are captured. If it is a good thermistor, then you should not be able to see any increase in noise from the test that you just ran.

nul-points · « **Reply #1323 on:** August 12, 2014, 01:54:32 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on August 11, 2014, 09:43:07 PM

Great, so the noise floor of the electronics is about +/-0.025 ^oC

No - not quite - we don't yet know the relative noise contributions of the electronics and the external resistor, separately

Quote from: MarkE on August 11, 2014, 09:43:07 PM

I think the next step is to perform the styrofoam (or paper) cup test so that all the noise contributions are captured

while we're waiting for that to happen....

what are some of your own personal goals, investigating novel energy sources, and what sort of challenges were you able to overcome in your last experiment in this area?

MarkE · « **Reply #1324 on:** August 12, 2014, 02:27:48 AM »

Quote from: nul-points on August 12, 2014, 01:54:32 AM

No - not quite - we don't yet know the relative noise contributions of the electronics and the external resistor, separately

while we're waiting for that to happen....

what are some of your own personal goals, investigating novel energy sources, and what sort of challenges were you able to overcome in your last experiment in this area?

A thermistor bridge detector operates with a swing > 1mV/C. the Johnson noise of the resistor is in the uV.

My goals are to see clean experiments. I try to help in that direction where I can.

nul-points · « **Reply #1325 on:** August 12, 2014, 01:04:40 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 02:27:48 AM

A thermistor bridge detector operates with a swing > 1mV/C. the Johnson noise of the resistor is in the uV.

assumptions based on typical values have their place

i believe that the exercise in which we have just been engaged, however, was to justify confidence in actual data by additional measurements (of the measuring tools themselves)

Quote from: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 02:27:48 AM

My goals are to see clean experiments. I try to help in that direction where I can.

altruism is a great gift, and sadly in short supply these days, it seems

i'm sure that everyone here is as grateful for your dedication and integrity as i am

MarkE · « **Reply #1326 on:** August 12, 2014, 05:47:41 PM »

Quote from: nul-points on August 12, 2014, 01:04:40 PM

assumptions based on typical values have their place

i believe that the exercise in which we have just been engaged, however, was to justify confidence in actual data by additional measurements (of the measuring tools themselves)

The tool in this case is the combination of the sensor and the signal conditioner / DAQ. So far things look reasonably good with respect to measured 0.2F excursions being actual temperatures and not artifacts of the probe + DAQ.

Quote

altruism is a great gift, and sadly in short supply these days, it seems

i'm sure that everyone here is as grateful for your dedication and integrity as i am

Some are. Others express suspicions of ulterior motives.

nul-points · « **Reply #1327 on:** August 12, 2014, 06:53:01 PM »

interesting - paranoia just the other side of the coin from being realistic?

i'm not sure how much more i'll be able to do now for a few days - i have a run of social commitments into the weekend

MarkE · « **Reply #1328 on:** August 12, 2014, 11:03:38 PM »

Quote from: nul-points on August 12, 2014, 06:53:01 PM

interesting - paranoia just the other side of the coin from being realistic?

i'm not sure how much more i'll be able to do now for a few days - i have a run of social commitments into the weekend

Lots of people have strange ideas.
There is no rush on my account. I encourage you to perform the still air test using the pair of cups if you are willing. I don't expect to see much if any difference from the fixed 5K resistor test.

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #1329 on:** August 14, 2014, 07:45:54 PM »

Quote from: nul-points on August 05, 2014, 10:11:44 PM

hello Steven and NerzhDishual

apologies for the long gaps in posting - i am continuing to investigate and log behaviour of related ccts

current tests are looking at 2 pulse ccts, with energy being returned both to their own sources (battery) and to each others - efficiency is high but currently still less than unity

i thought that you guys might be interested in the attached data

prompted by reading a 'paper' recently, describing the possibility of 'inverted population' action when magnetizing the core of a coil, and which suggested that there will be some evidence of energy flow into the core due to negentropic action, i started measuring the temperature inside the inner gap of the toroid compared with the temperature a little distance away from the toroid

the data is showing a definite drop in average temperature within the toroid (measured with two different probes and monitor devices)

the attached data is rather weird in that the temperature readings appear to be 'frequency modulated'!

it is unlikely that the cyclic nature of the temperature data is EMF pickup from the pulse circuit, since the pulse rate is approx 1 Hz and the temperature cycles recorded are many times slower than that (and indeed vary quite significantly themselves, depending on probe location)

data for 'ambient' temperature, as recorded inside one of the monitor cases, is by contrast very flat, increasing slowly from approx 21.25 to 21.5 degC throughout the period of data shown

i've normalised the graph data against the ambient temperature readings, referenced to a representative 21 degC baseline

the graph data represents temperature readings in degC against elapsed time in seconds - the probe was located initially inside the toroid for approx 5 mins, then it was relocated approx 10cms away from the toroid for approx 5 mins, then finally the probe was replaced back inside the toroid

it can be seen that the average temperature is lower within the central gap of the toroid than further away, and also that there is a cyclic nature to the temperature readings which changes significantly in frequency depending on probe location

interesting?

all the best
np

[edited to clarify direction of entropy change]

NP -- I too am having gaps in posting -- apologies on my side also.

Fascinating data --

Quote

the data is showing a definite drop in average temperature within the toroid (measured with two different probes and monitor devices)

the attached data is rather weird in that the temperature readings appear to be 'frequency modulated'!

it is unlikely that the cyclic nature of the temperature data is EMF pickup from the pulse circuit, since the pulse rate is approx 1 Hz and the temperature cycles recorded are many times slower than that (and indeed vary quite significantly themselves, depending on probe location)

data for 'ambient' temperature, as recorded inside one of the monitor cases, is by contrast very flat, increasing slowly from approx 21.25 to 21.5 degC throughout the period of data shown

I very much look forward to your further work!
I'm traveling by car today and tomorrow, so no computer contact likely for a while.

Thanks to earlier posts re: magnetic clamping, folks - lots of fun stuff there too.
--Steve

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #1330 on:** August 14, 2014, 07:56:35 PM »

Quote from: d3x0r on July 23, 2014, 11:55:02 PM

@jouleseeker

Here's a video that shows non-latching too... (tape wound core doesn't hold field)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHbQXnXK6Xc

Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsN2sr3U0PY (has a bit that transfers the 'holding' energy from the secondary back to the primary)
Also shows that the resistive loss in the wire eventually kills the current in the closed-loop secondary ...

And some flux gate switching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HyyGdnmb0

Thanks dx30r!

Also profitis and synchro1 - I'm catching up as we've been traveling a lot last several weeks.
--Steve

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #1331 on:** October 09, 2014, 07:00:16 AM »

Independent testing results are now available from a 2014 testing of an E-cat device.

Scientific treatise for download here: https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf

This is what I find so exciting, yet so puzzling!! From Appendix 3 in the Lugano report (see chart below).

--> Why is Li-7 consumed, but not Li-6? what is the reaction? (I presume P+ Li7 reacting - and releasing heat... LENR)

--> Why are Ni-58 and Ni-60 consumed, but not Ni-62?!! (Presumably p-Ni58 and p-Ni60 reactions are occurring - and releasing heat. LENR.)

To perform a replication - but I would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy -- one needs to know just what is in the test cylinder. For example, specifically what chemical species of Lithium and nickel, and what else is in there? Is this a "proprietary secret" at this time?

profitis · « **Reply #1332 on:** October 09, 2014, 12:56:17 PM »

Posibly some fission plus fusion mix going on in there.from a entropy standpoint I would imagine that the element isotopes that are most vulnerable to disintergration or co-hesion will go first.obviously in tiny amounts

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #1333 on:** October 09, 2014, 09:09:48 PM »

Yes, its quite a mystery as to what is going on here. Presumably proton + nickel => copper, but then one would hope they would look for copper isotopes in the ash and I don't see that they did this. But I'm still reading the long paper... very interesting.

MarkE · « **Reply #1334 on:** October 09, 2014, 09:29:16 PM »

Quote from: JouleSeeker on October 09, 2014, 07:00:16 AM

Independent testing results are now available from a 2014 testing of an E-cat device.

Scientific treatise for download here: https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf

This is what I find so exciting, yet so puzzling!! From Appendix 3 in the Lugano report (see chart below).

--> Why is Li-7 consumed, but not Li-6? what is the reaction? (I presume P+ Li7 reacting - and releasing heat... LENR)

--> Why are Ni-58 and Ni-60 consumed, but not Ni-62?!! (Presumably p-Ni58 and p-Ni60 reactions are occurring - and releasing heat. LENR.)

To perform a replication - but I would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy -- one needs to know just what is in the test cylinder. For example, specifically what chemical species of Lithium and nickel, and what else is in there? Is this a "proprietary secret" at this time?

Horrifically bad test protocols with inadequate verification often lead to bizarre claims. Their calculations show radiation scaling with supposed heat flux at a very different rate than convection. In order to believe their radiated power one has to believe both that convection efficiency dropped off massively and suddenly in a way that just happened to complement the increase in heat generation and that there was an anomalous jump in heat generation. It is an embarrassingly silly position for scientists to adopt without evidence.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ? (Read 923552 times)

MarkE

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

nul-points

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

MarkE

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

nul-points

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

MarkE

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

nul-points

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

MarkE

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

nul-points

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

MarkE

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

JouleSeeker

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

JouleSeeker

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

JouleSeeker

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

profitis

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

JouleSeeker

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

MarkE

Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?