Unfortunately I must report that the effects present on the aluminium backed board are not there on plain vanilla one.

The neon bulb does not light on the white vanilla board and so there are no HV effects or anything of that kind. That circuit seems to operate on ~2.06MHz here, while the one with the aluminium board half of that frequency (~1.09MHz).

Not sure what to think of it now, though I am not interested in measuring any kind of gains or losses because of these occurrences and because of what I wrote above in my previous post.

I only have one core at the moment (still waiting for the shipment to arrive) so doing side-by-side testing is impossible.

I'm not sure why is everyone obsessing with measuring things and calculating numbers. My stance is clear, as in my previous post, and only hoptoad seems to understand what I'm saying.

@EMdevices
This is the "Thomas" oscillator from Dr.Stiffler's page, I have just re-created it in effort to confirm or dispute the claim.

@hartiberlin
I think Dr.Stiffler said so many times that people should follow his exact steps in order to re-create the effect, so I think we owe it to him to do so, at least at first. And please let's drop this power measurements stuff, you and I both know that those numbers are fictitious, the Watts are derived from the Amps and as Bedini said, I'd love to see someone actually show me what 1 Amp is.

Otherwise, I do not know if this confirms anything or not. My findings are just my own and others should try to re-create this - we cannot draw any conclusions based on just one report alone, so get cracking everyone

I'm not sure why is everyone obsessing with measuring things and calculating numbers.

In the pursuit of scientific understanding, fortunately or unfortunately, there is a need for empirical recording and measurement.
In everyday life, this helps us to make every day choices. If I were a "petrol" head and didn't care about the cost of fuel, then comparing for example how many miles per gallon a car achieved wouldn't worry me or influence my decision to buy it, but for the rest of us budget conscious, eco-concerned types, miles per gallon is a high consideration. If I want to buy a fuel efficient car, I need some sort of empirical basis upon which to compare two or more vehicles in order to choose the correct one.

Same goes for possible lighting systems. I would want to install the system which gives me the most Lumens per watt. I wouldn't care less, as an average consumer, where all those Lumens came from, so long as I thought it was "green" and the most economical.

I hate figures and calculations, but in the end they are important. Supposing you think you have such an efficient circuit that it must be more efficient than any other method. How do you prove it. By empirical comparison.

As I've stated before, choosing what you are going to measure and compare seems to be the hard part here, and the choices may be crucial to many questions and results in these experiments.

KneeDeep.....I think all the bright lights are make making me dizzzzzy.......

Great work everyone! Cheers from the Toad who Hops

Thanks hoptoad for your explanation of why measurement is important - I was trying to figure out how to put it, and now I don't have to. :-)

As to figuring out what exactly we want to measure, I think for the moment we need to measure the amount of environmental input for a certain operator input, i.e. the amount of cold electricity/radiant energy which is converted to "useful" energy, per watt of electricity we input.

As far as I can tell, the way to do this is measuring the excess light emitted by an LED in an SEC circuit compared to what they normally would emit with the same input signal. The energy difference is the amount of radiant energy which the LEDs are converting to light. Just to be clear, by 'what they normally would emit', I am referring to their output without the radiant energy which is added by the SEC circuit. This could for example mean the output of the same LEDs, driven directly by the function generator. This experiment will only work however if the radiant energy is not converted to electricity in the SEC circuit, but is converted to light in the LEDs. If the SEC circuit converts radiant energy directly to electricity, the experiment may not show anything. As a result, if this experiment shows excess energy then it definitely exists, however if it doesn't show excess energy, that does not mean it doesn't exist.

You may have noticed that I like to stress the words "same signal". This is because you must be careful of any effects of the input signal on the efficiency of LEDs. If you want to compare a "standard" circuit to an SEC circuit, you must make sure the same signal is going through the LEDs in both, otherwise the LEDs in both circuits may have different efficiencies in converting input energy to light. This would render any actual numbers you get invalid.

While I havn't got the coils or the equipment yet and thus cannot make these measurements myself, I am working on getting hold of the needed materials, and aim to make these measurements ASAP. The important thing about these measurements is if the SEC circuit does indeed facilitate the conversion of radiant energy to light in the LEDs, these measurements will show it, and therefore give us some hard numbers.

If anybody has the know-how and the equipment, it would be great if they could try and make some of these measurements before I get around to it...

I suggest replace LED's with 4 diode (1N4148) and capacitor for energy measurement. I use that way for measurement.
If you have battery input, easy is measure P=U*I (just measure current, voltage is from battery).
In my (HF) experiment, I measure time for charging capacitor to 50 V voltage (for safety reason). On 470 uF its discharge has good spark (don't go up with charging).
Energy in capacitor is E=0.5*C*U*U, and it is in J = W/s.
See on my web, how easy is with 3W input (car hand lamp electronics with 1 transistor), charge that capacitor without wires in 60 second, and collect around 0.5 W/s energy.
Here in my experiment is input 3W/s, and every 60 second output is 0.5 W/s. Little energy, but great spark.

I write (in some post) that 1 AAA battery can light up 50 LED for 1-2 hours, with HF converting of 1.5 V with some FET converter.

Try to measure your real output. It is important...

*removed* EM

I have been puzzled by this experiment since the beginning. I have a video at youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDjSMtiElgI) showing a very simple experiment that seams to replicate this "cold electricity" but I still dont have an explanation why it works.

My experiment is very different from Dr. Stiffler original design but I see the latest "Thomas Oscilator" being, IMHO, exactly the same as mine except that he has an oscilator in place and I am using a Function Generator. In my experiment I removed the ground and the circuit is NOT closed loop, in other words, is open loop so that the FG is not the source of the current lighing up the leds. I was able to light up to 80+ leds fully in a variation of this video. I also do not believe the coil is of any effect here. I could reproduce the same results using a not so coil approach with a 250 lamp wire (yes it is a coil but a much different one).

Can someone explain to me, please, why my design works? What is this electricity? The reason I ask is simply because all I am seeing is a series of more complex examples of the same simple design that I have shown on my videos. I am very surprised to see "Thomas Design" to be as simple as one oscilator and a coil which is pretty much what I have.

How can someone measure a open loop system? Is it possible that the Func.Gen is powering "really" the LEDs with one wire? I totally agree with Dr. Stiffler title for his experiments ("Amplification") because what I see is somehow this "electricity" going through one wire has been amplified by the coil to the point of lighting the leds.

Fausto.