Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?  (Read 914400 times)

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #990 on: January 13, 2012, 05:21:10 AM »
Hello again, Steve

I'm not sure that you subscribe to my thread.  [snip]
Kindest,
Rosemary

Thanks for calling attention to your thread -- but you neglected to provide the URL...

  I learned by email today that Prof Savic has just sent one of his devices (I paid the fees for this) for testing in France -- and it is to his credit that he is willing to have another scientist check his claims.

Thanks, ND and all who support this research effort.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968

ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #992 on: January 14, 2012, 03:02:37 PM »
Dear Prof. Steve Jones,
 
It has been over a year since I sent you a FLEET prototype.  Thank you for the excellent work you have done.  I now have two ATTEN 1102 Oscilloscopes in Irvine, USA.  I have been training students and interested engineers.
 
I am happy to report that many can now produce Joule Thief or FLEET prototypes with COP > 1.  We can use the saved CSV files that can be manipulated with EXCEL.  We can get the average or mean power values.  We can get just the positive or negative power values.  Knowledge is one of the rare things that the more you give, the more you have!
 
A Taiwan Company is introducing the technology into one of their products.  Please see the attached.
 
Your comments are always appreciated.
 
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)

NickZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5225
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #993 on: January 14, 2012, 07:08:37 PM »
   Dr. Steven:
   I just found out that a joule thief using only chokes and no toroid or hand wound coils has already been made and is being marketed.  It may not be an everlasting light device, but it's cheap to buy in a ready made kit, and including shipping is not a bad deal at $10.  China will soon catch on, as we were mentioning earlier on... only they will produce it even cheaper. 
There are already solar garden lights selling at some dollar stores for a buck...  Who can compete with that...
                                                  NickZ
   Joule Thief Boost Circuit
   

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #994 on: January 20, 2012, 04:43:24 PM »
Thanks, NickZ -- nice little circuit!  and frankly, I'm glad someone is out there selling it inexpensively, just 10 bucks. 

Now an update on what I noted earlier:


  I learned by email today that Prof Savic has just sent one of his devices (I paid the fees for this) for testing in France -- and it is to his credit that he is willing to have another scientist check his claims.

Thanks, ND and all who support this research effort.

The device has arrived at the testing lab in France and tests will proceed soon.  Stay tuned.  ;)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #995 on: January 21, 2012, 02:04:03 AM »
My dear Professor,

You were rather public about the display of some very sweet coins you offered as a prize for experimental proof of over unity.  We have now attempted to alert you to our claim for this and, for some reason, you're not READING our challenge.

I am a little concerned that the problem may be with your eyesight.  I know something about this.  I too, am as blind as a bat.  I'm hoping that if I repeatedly call your attention to this claim of ours that - eventually - it'll come into focus.  At it's least there's an outside chance that we'll then reduce the statistical probability of being ignored FOREVER.  And one also HOPES that the fault is, indeed, an oversight.  Indeed.  It would be preferable to the rather sad conclusion that there may be an 'agenda' here - designed to IGNORE our claim - lest it prove successful.  God forbid.

We all know you as a highly professional expert in the art of scientific measurement.  You did such an extraordinary job on your dissertation related to that 9/11 catastrophe.  We also know how actively you advance proof of over unity.  I also know that poor Lawrence Tseung has been trying to alert you to his own claim for this based on the tests that I believe you've completed.  On the whole I think that Lawrence's claim actually proceeds our own.  I would be happy to 'step aside' provided only that you give us some indication that your analysis of those tests were actually based on some applied measurement protocols that conform to the standard requirements.

Do let us know.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • FreeNRG.info
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #996 on: January 21, 2012, 03:06:11 AM »

@Rosemary Ainslie,

As far I could have caught it, Prof Jones's "very sweet coins ... prize " is (also)
based upon "intuitu personae". Sorry for my Latin. :P

English translation: by virtue of the personality of the other party
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/latin_to_english/law_patents/138477-intuitu_personae.html

Of coarse, I must be dumb as a bunch of mussels.

Should I create my own prize (I can afford it) that I would act in a similar way.

Very Best

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #997 on: January 21, 2012, 06:00:06 AM »
@Rosemary Ainslie,

As far I could have caught it, Prof Jones's "very sweet coins ... prize " is (also)
based upon "intuitu personae". Sorry for my Latin. :P

English translation: by virtue of the personality of the other party
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/latin_to_english/law_patents/138477-intuitu_personae.html

Of coarse, I must be dumb as a bunch of mussels.

Should I create my own prize (I can afford it) that I would act in a similar way.

Very Best

Not sure of the interpretation of intuiti personae.  It's rather ambivalent and wiki insists on giving a French translation.  In any event - I take it that somewhere in Professor's list of qualifications - is the right to disregard a claimant should that claim require scientific evaluation?  Have I got that right?

In which case - I think what's needed here is a full and open account of what exactly is required in order to challenge Professor for those rather coveted coins of his.  Personally, I'm happy to give it my best shot.  After all.  It's not only ME who's claiming we've got INFINITE COP.  It's also very evident in Poynt.99's simulations.  We can't both be wrong.  Surely?

But it may be that these coins are actually already the legal property of Lawrence Tseung.  We just don't know.  We need to find out how those tests of Professor's panned out.  His results were rather ambivalent.  Not entirely sure that he's made a full disclosure yet.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

EDITED - Added an apostrophe

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #998 on: January 24, 2012, 03:07:50 AM »
[snip] I think what's needed here is a full and open account of what exactly is required in order to challenge Professor for those rather coveted coins of his.  Personally, I'm happy to give it my best shot.  After all.  It's not only ME who's claiming we've got INFINITE COP.  It's also very evident in Poynt.99's simulations.  We can't both be wrong.  Surely?

But it may be that these coins are actually already the legal property of Lawrence Tseung.  We just don't know.  We need to find out how those tests of Professor's panned out.  His results were rather ambivalent.  Not entirely sure that he's made a full disclosure yet.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

EDITED - Added an apostrophe

Rose,
The answer is here --

http://www.overunity.com/11661/new-renaissance-prizes-offered-to-encourage-energy-experimenters/msg304423/#msg304423

I copy the basics here for your convenience:

Quote
1.  Silver Eagle prize for allowing FREE lab-test:
First, your tests indicate that your build has more output power than input power -- and has output power of at least 1Watt on a load, and you will allow me to test/verify it . (“Black box” is OK, if you wish; you don’t have to tell me what’s inside, as long as there are no hidden batteries or capacitors).   Do your best and submit your entry for me to look at:  EMdevice12@yahoo.com
          Once OK’ed, I will also pay shipping both ways.  Results announced on forums; details of your device ONLY released WHEN you approve.  No galvanic batteries or "borrowing" from the electric-power grid, please!
 
2.  Gold Eagle (see photo below) prize if your device truly shows more Pout than Pin in my FREE tests, and you agree to seek to make the device available to mankind worldwide quickly.   (With a fair profit to the builder, that’s fine and I’ll even help!) 

3.  A self-running device that also powers a load at over 30W will receive an additional Gold Eagle coin, the Double-Gold-Eagle prize! 

So I need to ask you, are you willing to:
1. submit your entry for me to look at... I will also pay shipping both ways.

and very important for these prizes are to benefit mankind and hopefully quickly --

2.  Do you agree to make the device available to mankind worldwide quickly?

By this I mean "open source" of the details of the device and NOT seeking a patent -- hopefully with a fair return to the inventor(s) as explained previously.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #999 on: January 24, 2012, 02:26:13 PM »
Rose,
The answer is here --

http://www.overunity.com/11661/new-renaissance-prizes-offered-to-encourage-energy-experimenters/msg304423/#msg304423

I copy the basics here for your convenience:

So I need to ask you, are you willing to:
1. submit your entry for me to look at... I will also pay shipping both ways.

and very important for these prizes are to benefit mankind and hopefully quickly --

2.  Do you agree to make the device available to mankind worldwide quickly?

By this I mean "open source" of the details of the device and NOT seeking a patent -- hopefully with a fair return to the inventor(s) as explained previously.

Thanks for this.  If you don't mind I'm answering this on my own thread.  May I please ask you to continue the discussion there? 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Sorry I should have added the link.  Here it is.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/new/#new

ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #1000 on: February 01, 2012, 02:10:26 PM »
Prof. Steven Jones,
 
I tried to put all relevant test data for a particular prototype in a single xls file.  Hopefully all my tests (and my students) will be in a similar format.
 
Attached is an example of a COP=74 FLEET prototype.  You are welcome to double check the calculations and analysis.
 
Continue your great research.  Enjoy the Divine Wine.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #1001 on: February 06, 2012, 07:47:19 AM »
Dear Professor, 
May I ALSO impose on you to answer Itseung.   I'm rather concerned that this appeal of his will be IGNORED and this because he is not dissipating the required 15 Watts - that you've retrospectively added as a qualification for your prize.  I'm sure he would not have gone to the trouble to ALERT YOU to this if he did not think that he - at it's least - qualified for CONSIDERATION of that prize.  The way you ignore him could be construed as being rather rude.  I'm sure that's not your intention.

And we would, all of us, like to know if you are endorsing Poynty Point's evaluation of the following circuit that the CORRECT MEASURE OF ENERGY IS AS HE CLAIMS 250 POSITIVE watts DISSIPATED BY THE LOAD and 250 NEGATIVE watts delivered by the battery supply?  SURELY NOT?  I'm rather concerned that this is the analysis you applied to Itseung's work.  In which case, perhaps you could defer to your own skilled experts on power measurement.  It seems that they WOULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

Which also means, UNFORTUNATELY, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, that we are OVER QUALIFIED for your prize.  Please advise us.  It seems that Itseung is not the ONLY one who is ignored here.

Prof. Steven Jones,
 
I tried to put all relevant test data for a particular prototype in a single xls file.  Hopefully all my tests (and my students) will be in a similar format.
 
Attached is an example of a COP=74 FLEET prototype.  You are welcome to double check the calculations and analysis.
 
Continue your great research.  Enjoy the Divine Wine.

I'll try and upload that circuit where Poynty Point insists that there's a negative wattage to be computed from the energy delivered by the battery supply.   It's rather catastrophically INCORRECT.  I trust that you realise this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

AS A POINT OF INTEREST (APOI)
I would point out that I'm only answering you here because you seem incapable of replying on our own thread.  Not sure if you can't find your way there with the link provided.  Or if you think it's more diplomatic to just ignore that thread.  Either way.  I have NO PROBLEM in using your thread as you prefer.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #1002 on: February 06, 2012, 08:10:47 AM »
I possibly need to remind you about our claim.

We have experimental evidence that we are dissipating some very real energy at a load resistor - which is entirely without any measure of energy delivered from a battery supply source.  Effectively we're getting water to boil with no measured discharge of energy from a battery supply source.  But - as ever - this depends on those protocols that your expert colleagues have explained in their text books - and - OBVIOUSLY - in line with standard measurement protocols that were more or less ironed out by our greats. 

We certainly dissipate more than 15 watts - which is your nominal output requirement.

We are absolutely committed to Open Source,

Our experimental evidence has been widely demonstrated - certainly to in excess of 100 engineers.  But thus far, unfortunately, we have not managed to get an academic expert to the table.

The only question, very obviously, relates to that curious proposal of Poynty Point where he seriously recommends that we attribute the energy delivered by the battery to a negative wattage sum.  That rather contradicts the logic in power analysis - and it confronts a well developed chapter in our understanding of the transfer of electromagnetic energy that I believe cannot be endorsed in terms of our standard model.  Unless, of course, that you, like him - see merit in upending known physics.  In which case.  May I impose on you to explain these new and exotic theories?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #1003 on: February 06, 2012, 05:53:50 PM »
Now you're talking, Rose:

Quote
We have experimental evidence that we are dissipating some very real energy at a load resistor - which is entirely without any measure of energy delivered from a battery supply source.  Effectively we're getting water to boil with no measured discharge of energy from a battery supply source.  But - as ever - this depends on those protocols that your expert colleagues have explained in their text books - and - OBVIOUSLY - in line with standard measurement protocols that were more or less ironed out by our greats. 

We certainly dissipate more than 15 watts - which is your nominal output requirement.

We are absolutely committed to Open Source,...

Wonderful -- so in the spirit of Open Source, I ask that you show the details of your measurements of output power ("more than 15 watts") and input power, including a video of the measurements being taken (real time, with device operating).  Inner details of the device itself can come later; suggest we start with the actual power measurements and check these first.

For water,
Q (heat added) = C * m * (Tf - Ti)     and so I'm requesting to SEE the actual data you have.
   Specific heat of water C = 4.186 Joule/g*deg-C

In the event of boiling, one would use (measuring the mass m evaporated away with some care):
Hvap (heat of vaporization) = 2260 KJ/Kg * m

Calorimetric measurements like this are great!  and I look forward to seeing your data, Rose.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #1004 on: February 06, 2012, 06:22:45 PM »
Now you're talking, Rose:

Wonderful -- so in the spirit of Open Source, I ask that you show the details of your measurements of output power ("more than 15 watts") and input power.  Details of the device can come later; suggest we start with the measurements and check these first.

For water,
Q (heat added) = C * m * (Tf - Ti)     and so I'm requesting to SEE the actual data you have.
   Specific heat of water C = 4.186 Joule/g*deg-C

In the event of boiling, one would use (measuring the mass m evaporated away with some care):
Hvap (heat of vaporization) = 2260 KJ/Kg * m

Calorimetric measurements like this are great!  and I look forward to seeing your data, Rose.

Hello Professor, 

I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm.  I was beginning to think that you were deliberately ignoring our claim as you do poor Itseung's.  Anyway.  Let me see if I can put this as clearly as possible - mainly because I think clarity's important.  Wouldn't you agree?

Now.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is.  It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso.  On other tests we only manage to take the temperature of the element resistor to something that's mildly uncomfortable to the touch.  Not the kind of precision that I suspect you're looking for.  But that's not the thrust of our question.  As mentioned, I'm anxious to find out how you actually calculate the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery.  Here's our problem.  We are applying standard measurement protocols.  And for the life of us we cannot find any evidence of any energy at all - being delivered by those batteries.  Which leaves us with that rather puzzling anomaly of INFINITE COP.  Not  easily explained in terms of the standard model - unless, of course,  there are measurement errors.

WELL.  Here's the thing.  Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis.  If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker.  But what do I know. So.  What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG.  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak.  Actually that's possibly tautological.   :o   In any event.  You know what I mean.  Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number.  And our claim will be defeated at the get go.  Actually, come to think of it.  ANYONE AT ALL - who ever tries to prove over unity in the future - and under these unconventional measurement conventions - will ALSO, inevitably, be left with something CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN UNITY. 

Please do clarify this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 08:35:21 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »